ID: aiam0712

Dear Mr. Parrott: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1972, posing certai questions concerning paragraph S4.10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Seating Systems.' You ask 'what criteria are to be used to determine whether an area is a contactable area under S4.10.'; The components that would be considered contactable by the head unde S4.10.1, or by the torso under S4.10.2, are any components which a child within the weight and height range for which the seat is recommended might contact in a 30 m.p.h. barrier crash, as represented by the test procedure specified in S5.1 and S5.2.; You also ask for clarification of the meaning of 'rigid side' as tha phrase is used in S4.10.3. As we indicated to you in our letter of February 23, 1972, manufacturers should rely on generally available definitions of 'rigid' in determining whether or not components are within the term. The reference to 'side' includes components placed both to the right and left, and forward of and behind the child occupant. Consequently, both an arm rest and a head rest (either separate from the back of a child seat or part of a one piece back of a child seat) could fall within the exemption of S4.10.3. The reference to 'back or side' in the proposed amendment to S4.10 published September 23, 1972 (35 F.R. 14786), is intended purely as a clarification of the existing language, the main thrust of the proposed revision would be, as stated in its preamble, to eliminate the exemption in the head- contact area.; With reference to the status of the September 23 proposal, a final rul based on this notice is still under consideration and we cannot presently provide an indication as to when it may become effective.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 7738-2

Ms. Julia Wall
Head of School
The Trinity School of Texas
906 Padon Street
Longview, Texas 75601

Dear Ms. Wall:

This responds to your letter to the Department of Transportation seeking a copy of the federal law regulating student transportation in general, and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans. I assume that your use of the term multiple passenger vans refers to vans with seats to the rear of the driver.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, passenger vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes passenger vans which carry ten persons or less; passenger vans which carry more than ten persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. A copy of Guideline 17 is enclosed.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Texas law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref: #571 d:11/3/92

ID: nht92-2.47

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JULIA WALL -- HEAD OF SCHOOL, THE TRINITY SCHOOL OF TEXAS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09-01-92 (EST.) FROM JULIA WALL TO D.O.T. (OCC 7738)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to the Department of Transportation seeking a copy of the federal law regulating student transportation in general, and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans. I assume that your use of the term multiple passenger vans refers to vans with seats to the rear of the driver.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, passenger vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes passenger vans which carry ten persons or less; passenger vans which carry more than ten persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. A copy of Guideline 17 is enclosed.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Texas law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: Underwood.1

Mr. Glenn Underwood
AGC Automotive-Americas
Quality Assurance, CQE
1 Auto Glass Drive (P.O. Box 5000)
Elizabethtown, KY 42702-5000




Dear Mr. Underwood:

This responds to your September 29, 2004, letter in which you requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked about the requirements for marking glazing with an AS1 symbol, which signifies the point above or below which the glazing has light transmissibility greater than or equal to 70 percent. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways Standard ANSI Z26.1. Accordingly, prior to sale, a manufacturer must certify compliance of its product with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including those requirements incorporated from ANSI Z26.1.

However, as your letter points out, NHTSA is in the process of modifying the regulatory requirements under FMVSS No. 205, by shifting from the currently referenced 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 (supplemented by Z26.1a-1980) to the 1996 version of that ANSI standard. A final rule to effect this change was issued on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964). However, subsequent notices were issued extending the compliance date for the final rule, most recently to September 1, 2006 (see 69 FR 51188 (August 18, 2004)). As part of the final rule, the paragraph S3.1, Application, was modified to make the standard apply to both vehicles and equipment; accordingly, once in effect, both vehicle manufacturers and glazing manufacturers will be required to certify that their products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

As your letter correctly points out, the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1 requires a slightly different symbol for marking AS1 glazing than did the earlier versions. Under the earlier versions, that glazing would be marked as A↓S1, but under the 1996 version, that glazing would

be marked as AS↓1. (Some glazing also may have portions requiring a similar mark with an arrow turned upwards, but the change in sequencing of the letters and symbol would be the same. )

Beginning on the compliance date of September 1, 2006, glazing manufacturers must mark glazing covered by the above-discussed requirement with the AS1 symbol that meets the specifications of the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1. However, prior to that time, glazing manufacturers may produce and certify glazing with the AS1 symbol that meets the specifications of the 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 (supplemented by Z26.1a-1980). Similarly, on September 1, 2006, vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles, including installed glazing, meet the new requirements.

As a practical matter, during the period immediately preceding September 1, 2006, glazing could be manufactured and certified by the glazing manufacturer under the older version of ANSI Z26.1 but be held in inventory beyond that date, and as a result, a vehicle manufacturer would not be able to install such glazing in a vehicle because the newer versions of ANSI Z26.1 then would be in effect. We expect that this would be a one-time problem of brief duration. However, the agency will consider this issue in our response to petitions for reconsideration of the July 25, 2003 final rule, since several petitions raised the issue of the effective date of the final rule.

Nevertheless, we believe that the final rule itself provides a solution to the concern you have identified. As noted in the July 25, 2003 final rule (see 68 FR 43964, 43970) and in paragraph S3.1 of the August 18, 2004 final rule (see 60 FR 51188, 51191), for motor vehicles and glazing equipment manufactured before September 1, 2006, a manufacturer may, at its option, comply with the revised standard (i.e. , using the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1) instead of the current version of FMVSS No. 205 (i.e. , using the 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 supplemented by Z26.1a-1980). We believe that this provision for voluntary early compliance would allow you to resolve any concerns you or your customers might have regarding appropriate marking with the AS1 symbol during this period of transition.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:205
12/1/04

ID: NCC-220915-001 Speedometer Conformity Interp Letter

March 21, 2023

Chris Cowen
Port Intelligence Officer
Customs and Border Protection Tactical Operations
104 Bridge Approach Plaza
Ogdensburg, NY 13669 

Dear Mr. Cowen: 

This responds to your email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting a determination as to whether certain vehicles imported into the United States from Canada comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) relating to speedometers. Specifically, you ask whether vehicles equipped with both an analog speedometer that displays only in kilometers per hour (km/h) and a multifunction display that is capable of displaying in miles per hour (MPH) if the driver selects that option would be permissible for importation into the United States without modification. 

Based on the requirements of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays, the answer is no. These vehicles do not conform to NHTSA’s requirements and thus are not eligible for importation without modification. Please note that our answer is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email. 

Background 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards and investigates alleged safety-related defects. 

Page 2
Mr. Chris Cowen 

Of relevance to your request, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 (49 CFR § 571.101), which primarily ensures the accessibility, visibility, and recognition of motor vehicle indicators, including speedometers, to reduce safety hazards caused by diversion of the driver’s attention. This standard specifies performance requirements for location, identification, color, and illumination of motor vehicle indicators. It applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. 

Discussion 

The questions inherent in your request, as we understand it, are below:  

1. Do the speedometers meet the FMVSS No. 101 definition of an indicator?  
2. If so, does each indicator meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101? 

Regarding the first question, paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 101 defines an indicator as “a device that shows the magnitude of the physical characteristics that the instrument is designed to sense.”  Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101 specifies that speedometers are, in fact, indicators. 

Regarding the second question, paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 101 states that all covered vehicles fitted with indicators listed in Table 1 must meet the requirements for the location, identification, color, and illumination of those indicators. 

Based on our review of the photographs you provided, the speedometers at issue appear to satisfy the requirements for location and color, in accordance with paragraph S5.1 “Location” and paragraph S5.4 “Color.”  

We now turn to the identification requirement. Table 1 specifies that speedometers must be identified with units of measurement, using either “MPH” or “MPH and km/h.” You provided pictures of two speedometers: an analog gauge displaying only metric units (km/h) and a digital display that allows the driver to select U.S. customary units (MPH). The analog gauge clearly does not meet the identification requirement of Table 1 because it is marked only in km/h. Next, we consider whether the digital display, defined as a multi-task display in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 101, meets the requirement. A multi task display is a display on which more than one message can be shown simultaneously. For example, the display here reportedly presents a layered menu of functions that the driver can change. If the driver selects the digital “MPH” display, the speedometer appears to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101. If, however, the driver selects a different menu option (or no menu option), the speedometer no longer displays “MPH.” Therefore, the multi-task display, by itself, does not meet the identification requirement that “MPH” always be displayed, and in the absence of an analog speedometer that displays MPH, this vehicle would not be compliant with FMVSS No. 101.  

We have not evaluated the “illumination” requirement, as your correspondence does not provide sufficient information to allow us to do so. 

Page 3
Mr. Chris Cowen 

In sum, an indicator, including a speedometer, must meet all requirements of FMVSS No. 101. For the reasons enumerated above, the requirements of the FMVSS are not met and the vehicles are noncompliant. Therefore, vehicles containing these instruments are not eligible for importation into the United States without modification. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Terrence Sommers of my staff at this address or at terrence.sommers@dot.gov.  

Sincerely,

John Donaldson
Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: 3/23/23
Ref: Standard No. 101

ID: aiam2480

Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to your September 1, 1977, request for clarification o the legal issues that face truck manufacturers who, at the request of owners, replace brake components used in satisfaction of the early performance levels of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, with brake components that are used in satisfaction of the existing reduced performance levels of the standard. Your concern is that some manufacturers may be reluctant to undertake such replacement if it involves testing and recertification of the vehicle to Standard No. 121.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C S 1381 et seq.) prohibits the manufacture, offer for sale, sale, introduction in interstate commerce or importation of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture (S 108(a)(1)(A)). This prohibition does not apply (except for importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. S 108(b)(1)). Section 114 of the Act requires that the manufacturer certify compliance of a vehicle to applicable standards at the time of delivery to the distributor or dealer. There is no basis under these or any other statutory provisions for the manufacturers' belief that recertification of a used vehicle is required, however it may be modified.; The manufacturers you mention may be concerned about their liabilit under S 108(a)(2)(A) which prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. As you know, it is the published opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that a commercial facility does not 'knowingly render inoperative' a device or element of design by replacing components installed in satisfaction of a safety standard with other components that are used in newer vehicles of the same type in satisfaction of the same standard, even if the standard for the newer vehicles impose a less stringent level of performance (42 FR 26279, May 23, 1977). The manufacturers may believe that they have a statutory obligation to prove that the substituted parts, as installed in each vehicle, in fact provide performance equal to that required by the existing standard.; It is, of course, a factual matter in each case whether the modifie used vehicle does in fact provide the performance for new vehicles specified by Standard No. 121. I would like to point out, however, that (1) the Act requires certification of vehicles only upon initial delivery to the distributor or dealer, (2) the normal deterioration of brake components on vehicles-in-use would make it virtually impossible to determine as a factual matter whether the substitution of smaller, new components in fact degrade performance of the vehicle, and (3) the prohibition of S 108(a)(2)(A) requires intent to degrade the system on the part of the manufacturer before the modification would constitute a violation.; In view of these factors, I am surprised that manufacturers believ they need to conduct road testing to ensure they do not violate S 108(a)(2)(A). My understanding is that truck models do not change radically from year-to-year, and that the certification testing following Notice 7 was conducted on vehicles similar to those built in the January 1975 to March 1976 period. I would expect that the results of those tests could be used as a basis for deciding whether the modified vehicles provide the specified level of performance.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: aiam1690

Dear Mr. Davis: This is in acknowledgment of your Defect Information Report, i accordance with the defect reporting regulation, Part 573.; The Defect Information Report involves: 114 trailers equipped wit Standard Forge axles which may have defective brake shoes.; The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio identification number has been assigned to the campaign *74-0223*. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by February 5, 1975. Please refer to the above number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject trailer does not entirely meet the requirements of Part 577(49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter states that the defect exists in a number of axles. In instances, however, where a vehicle manufacturer is conducting a campaign, Part 577.4(b) requires that the defect be described as existing in the vehicle itself. The reference in the regulation to motor vehicle equipment applies only to equipment campaigns where vehicles are not directly involved. Your statement that reduced braking power or lockup may result is not an adequate evaluation of the risk to traffic safety since Part 577.4(d) clearly states that if vehicle crash without prior warning is a potential occurrence the letter must state this. The letter also does not give an estimate of the time reasonably necessary to perform the required labor. Since it appears that the owner must bear the labor cost, this information is especially significant. A date by which parts will be available should also have been given.; It is therefore necessary that you send a revised letter to thos owners whose vehicles have not yet been corrected and who have not yet indicated their intention to do so. A copy should also be sent to this office.; We also wish to point out that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 requires that defect notification letters be sent to all known retail purchasers. Notifications to dealers therefore do not satisfy this requirement and need not follow the format of Part 577. It is therefore recommended that dealers either forward to you the addresses of the retail purchasers or mail a notification letter to each purchaser directly. Addresses of owners, however, need not be submitted to this office unless requested.; A copy of Part 577 is enclosed. If you desire further information please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: 1984-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Marion Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road

High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your recent correspondence concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Your correspondence comprised two letters to this office. In your first letter, you asked two questions regarding the labeling requirements for emergency exits. Your second letter inquired into the provision of push-out windows in buses other than school buses.

Your first question concerns the labeling of emergency exits in non-school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Section 5.5.1 of the Standard requires labels for all emergency exits except for doors and roll-down windows.

The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No. 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially-installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 217 permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll-down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. On the other hand, Section 5.5.1 provides that specially-installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement.

Your second question asked:

Would there be any labeling requirements for push-out windows, on a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?

The answer to your question depends on whether the additional windows are designed or constructed as emergency exits. Standard No. 217 does not require that every exit installed in a school bus beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 must comply with the requirements applicable to school bus exits. On the other hand, additional emergency exits in school buses, beyond those required by Standard No. 217, must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses if the exit is intended as an emergency exit. These additional exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of the standard.

In your second letter to this agency you described a situation where school bus contractors utilize school buses as general transit vehicles on charter trips when the buses are not in use for school purposes. You asked, "Are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?"

The answer to your question is no. The vehicles you described would have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are sold as school buses. Thus, these vehicles would only be subject to the standards applicable to school buses. Further, even though these vehicles are not subject to the safety standards applicable to vehicles other than school buses, I would note that Standard No. 217 does not mandate push-out windows to be used for emergency exits in non-school buses. The agency determined that devices such as panels and doors which meet the emergency exit requirements would be as effective as push-out windows for emergency egress. Sliding emergency exits must, of course, comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 217. They must be capable of complying with the standard when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. Also, while the standard permits devices other than push-out windows to be used for emergency exits, the agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits because they are less likely to "bind up" during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 21, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I would like to request an interpretation of a particular situation which appears to be common among school bus contractors in various states.

Many contractors will purchase school buses to be used to transport students to and from school and school related events, during normal school hours. In the evenings and during the summer the contractors will cover the school bus signs and use these buses for charter trips for various groups.

My question is, are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?

Thank you in advance for your assistance in clearing up this matter.

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jm

Enclosure

cc: Ed Swain Bob Nelson - Wisconsin Dist.

March 19, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

I would like to request interpretations of two areas of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217.76, with regards to the labeling of Emergency exits.

1. FMVSS 217.76, part S5.5.1 appears to require the labeling of all emergency exits in non-school buses with the following exceptions:

A. Windows serving as emergency exits in accordance with S5.5.2.(b) (Push-out windows in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.)

B. Doors in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

Would it, therefore, be correct to assume that a non-school bus 2 with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less has no requirements as to the labeling of emergency exits?

2. Section 5.5.3 of FMVSS 217.76 requires that each school bus emergency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1 be labeled in a specified manner.

A. Would there be any labeling requirements for pushout windows, on a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?

Thank you for your assistance with these matters. Sincerely,

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jm

ID: aiam4734

"Dear Mr. Falcon: This responds to your letter to our agency concernin your law enforcement standard (71.4.1) for an interior partition you call a 'safety barrier.' I regret the delay in responding. The copy of 71.4.1 you provided states: 'Vehicles used primarily for transporting prisoners (80 percent of their use) should have the driver separated from the prisoner by a safety barrier.' The 'commentary' to 71.4.1 states that, 'The safety barrier may be of wire mesh or heavy gauge plastic to prevent the prisoner from having access to the driver's compartment ...' Mr. Steven Crowell wrote you last year suggesting that this commentary should be revised to state: 'The safety barrier must be one which has had a label or tag affixed to it which certifies compliance with all applicable' Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). Mr. Crowell believes such certification is required by Federal law, and apparently bases this on our September 13, 1985 letter to him. You ask whether his understanding is correct. Mr. Crowell is not entirely correct in his understanding of our certification requirements. Our regulations do not generally require materials in safety barriers to be certified, except for glazing materials in barriers. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used for an interior partition. The standard does not require labels or tags to certify the compliance of the glazing material with it. However, the standard does require that glazing material in a barrier must bear a mark to certify compliance with the standard. Standard No. 205 is the only FMVSS that applies directly to interior partitions (and only if the partition contains glazing material). There is no other FMVSS to which the partition itself would be certified. Since glazing material in safety barriers need not be certified by labels or tags, and because safety barriers made from materials other than glazing materials are not certified under Federal law, we believe 71.4.1's seeking to require affixing a certification label or tag on the barriers may engender confusion about NHTSA's requirements. We note also that there is no Federal requirement for persons to certify modifications made to used vehicles. Therefore, we recommend against 71.4.1's seeking to require certifications in the form of labels or tags affixed to safety barriers installed in new or used vehicles. However, we agree with Mr. Crowell that safety barriers should be installed in a safe manner, and believe that our regulations promote this to the extent possible under the Vehicle Safety Act. If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of a partition as original equipment (prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer), the person making the installation would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify (by attaching a label to the vehicle) that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS's. These FMVSS's include the standards for head restraints (Standard 202), interior impact protection (201), rearview mirrors (111), and crash protection (208). We know of no reason why a suitable partition can't be developed which could be placed in a vehicle equipped with head restraints and shoulder belts. Further, it does not seem to be a difficult matter for the barrier to be installed so that the vehicle would meet Standard 111's requirements for rearview mirrors. On the other hand, installation of the barrier could interfere with the compliance of the back of the front seat with Standard 201 (copy enclosed). Paragraph S3.2 of that standard sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to protect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. The partition design should be capable of meeting Standard 201's requirements for energy absorption and should not be hazardous to head impact. If the safety barrier were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation if he knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This prohibition is contained in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the safety barrier you described, also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. The Safety Act imposes a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation upon any manufacturer who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in its motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. In view of the fact that a police department may alter its own vehicles without regard to 108(a)(2)(A), we believe Mr. Crowell might be suggesting that 71.4.1 recommend that the safety barrier should be installed in a manner that does not negatively affect the compliance of the vehicle with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA generally encourages vehicle owners not to remove safety equipment or otherwise alter their vehicles if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. Therefore, while we do not agree with Mr. Crowell that you should seek to require affixed certification labels or tags for barriers, we agree that installation of the barrier should be done in a manner that avoids degrading the overall safety of the vehicle. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3442

Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your recent letter asking which of the specifi requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, must be met by an automatic seat belt assembly that is installed in a vehicle in accordance with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*.; The agency has stated in the past that automatic seat belt assemblie must meet the adjustment requirements of paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 that are incorporated by reference in S7.1, whether or not the automatic belts are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 or Safety Standard No. 208. Automatic belts that are installed to comply with the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other requirements of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. As noted in your letter, paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 requires the automatic belt assembly to have a retractor that complies with Safety Standard No. 209. However, the requirements for retractor performance in Safety Standard No. 209 are based on other tests in the standard which are used for preconditioning or as prerequisites. Therefore, you state that it is not clear which requirements must be met by a retractor on an automatic belt assembly.; Paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 is only intended t incorporate by reference those provisions in Safety Standard No. 209 that are directly related to retractor performance. Therefore, all automatic belt retractors are required to comply with the following provisions of Safety Standard No. 209, S4.3(j), S4.3(k), and S5.2(a), (b), (j), and (k). Please note, however, that the retractors do not have to comply with paragraph S4.4 which is incorporated by reference in S4.3(k), since S4.4 relates to the performance of entire belt assemblies.; I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. We apologize for th delay.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel