ID: nht75-1.36

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Amerace Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of July 21, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

Your letter of June 12, 1975, explained that you supply hose in lengths as short as 1 1/2 inches. You found it possible to include a complete legend of the information required by S5.2.2 of the standard only by utilizing two lines of printing, parallel to each other and separated by approximately 1/8 inch. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, such a labeling procedure would satisfy the standard's requirements.

I would like to point out, however, that the standard was amended by Notice 18 (40 FR 38159, August 27, 1975), to facilitate the depletion of inventories of brake hose which complies with all requirements except the labeling requirements of S5.2. One effect of that amendment was to delay until September 1, 1976, the requirement that at least one complete legend appear on any hose used in an assembly, regardless of its length. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the notice.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

June 12, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel N. H. T. S. A.

Attention: Mark Schwimer

Subject: FMVSS-106

Dear Sir:

In reference to our phone conversation of June 3, 1975, Notice 16 of FMVSS-106 is quite explicit in requiring that a complete legend appear on each and every piece of brake hose regardless of length. The Standard itself, and various notices, appear to be less explicit as to whether this legend must appear on only one line. Notice 11 does state "only the required information may appear along one side of the hose". Your clarification is requested on this since we are not able to incorporate a complete legend on each hose length using existing equipment, nor are we able to incorporate it into just a single line.

We currently furnish some OEM parts down to 1-1/2" in length. Current equipment will allow us to repeat a complete legend every 4". On parts shorter than 4" we have found it necessary to hand stamp each piece individually, at a considerable cost penalty I might add, but even using this technique we are not able to include a complete legend on a single line within 1 1/2". However, we can apply a complete legend within 1 1/2" with a hand stamp by utilizing two lines of printing. These two lines are on "one side of the hose", parallel to each other and separated by approximately 1/8".

Since we have a considerable amount of inventory on parts under 4" which have been held up from being shipped since the effective date of Notice 16, which was March 17, 1975, we would appreciate your interpretation of the standard as to whether more than one line is permissible for a complete legend. A reply at your earliest convenience would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

SWAN HOSE DIVISION -- Amerace Corporation; R. E. Ruda -- Technical Services Manager

ID: nht87-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Martin V. Chauvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your two letters to this agency concerning safety belts on school buses. Your October 24, 1986 letter to this office asked for clarification of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA in 1976 which stated that seats on large school bu ses are strong enough to absorb the seat belt loads set for belts on smaller school buses. Your October 29, 1986 letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, which has been referred to my office for reply, concerned manufacturers' test data for head form impact requirements of Standards No. 222 and No. 208. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your first letter pertained to retrofitting safety belts on large school buses meeting Standard No. 222. You referred to a 1976 Federal Register notice in which NHTSA said that seats on large school buses that meet Standard No. 222 are strong enough to absorb safety belt loads. You explained that school bus manufacturers disagree with those statements and have indicated that they are not true for most seats on large school buses manufactured since 1977. Your question asked whether manufacturers are r equired to equip large school buses with seats that are strong enough to meet the load requirements set for safety belts in small school buses.

The answer to your question is no. Seats installed on large school buses must meet their own strength requirements set by Standard No. 222. Manufacturers are not required to install seats on large school buses that are capable of meeting the load requi rements set for safety belts on small school buses.

For your information, I am enclosing a May 11, 1978 letter from former Chief Counsel Joseph Levin to Dr. Arthur Yeager, in which we discuss the statement made in Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 you referenced in your letter. Mr. Levin's letter explains that NHT SA had proposed safety belt requirements for large school buses that would have set lower belt load requirements than those currently applicable to small school buses. (In addition, the proposed seat strength requirement was higher than that adopted in Standard No. 222.) Mr. Levin explains that the statement made in Notice 5 was referring to the safety belt requirements formerly proposed for the seats on large school buses, which the seats would be capable of withstanding. It did not mean to imply tha t the seats on large school buses were strong enough to be retrofitted with safety belts and meet the requirements applicable to belts on small school buses.

We believe that manufacturers can design the seats on large school buses to accommodate safety belts which meet the load requirements applicable to belts on the smaller school buses. As you know, NHTSA proposed an amendment to Standard No. 222 which wou ld set such a strength requirement for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses, to ensure that proper belt installations are made. If adopted, the amendment would supersede any conflicting statements in the Yeager letter concerning the load requirements applicable to new large school buses.

In your second letter, you explained that New York enacted a law which sets certain head form impact requirements for school buses. You would like to obtain information from manufacturers regarding the values they obtained for the actual axial accelerat ion of the head form pursuant to Standards No. 208 and No. 222. You asked whether motor vehicle manufacturers are required to submit such test data to NHTSA.

The answer to your question is no. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of motor vehicles or items or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its pr oducts meet all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification . That data is retained by the manufacturer, and is not submitted to NHTSA for approval. NHTSA can request manufacturers to produce records to show how it determined compliance if a question should arise as to the compliance of a particular product wit h NHTSA requirements.

Please note that the New York legislation you mentioned raises an important preemption issue. Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is governed by @103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of moto r vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that requi red to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. We understand that New York's law requires passenger safety belts and additional seat padding on all new school buses manufactured for use in New York. The New York law applies to the same a spect of performance (i.e., passenger crash protection) as Standard No. 222 but specifies performance requirements that are not identical to the Federal standard. In requiring the belts and the additional padding, the New York law is specifying higher r equirements than those in the FMVSS. Section 103(d) preempts higher state requirements except to the extent that they apply to vehicles procured for the State's use. Therefore, the New York law is preempted under the first sentence of @103(d) to the ex tent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in New York to be equipped with belts and extra padding. The law is not preempted to the extent that it requires belts and additional padding for public school buses. The phrase "vehicles procured for [the State's] own use" includes public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ENC.

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

October 24, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

The New York State Department of Transportation has been designated by New York statute as the agency responsible for promulgating regulations dealing with seat belts on school buses. In pursuing this assignment, we have been presented with a problem th at needs clarification from your office.

Enclosed are two documents that refer to standards being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One document is a copy of a page (4017) of the Federal Register. Vol. 41-No. 19-Wednesday, January 28, 1976 (the specific date is somewhat blurred but it is definitely January 20 something 1976). The second document is identified as "Preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222" and is dated October 26, 1976. The question we need clarification on is addressed in bot h documents.

We have been provided an interpretation of these documents (underlined or otherwise marked to identify particular item in question) that indicates that school buses, since 1977 have been required to provide seats that meet safety standard 222 and as such must be capable of accomodating seat belts. School bus body manufacturers advise us that this is not true. In fact, the manufacturers advise us that better than 95 percent of the buses manufacturered since 1977 would not be equipped with seats that ca n accomodate seat belts.

We are looking to you to help clarify this matter. In essence, we want to know if manufacturers are required to equip school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds with seats that can accomodate seat belts (for example, meet the federal standards that have been spelled out for buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

We are faced with some severe time constraints so we would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank for your help.

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ENCLS.

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

October 29, 1986 William, Smith Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Smith:

Enclosed is a copy of a bill that was enacted into law on July 30, 1986 and sets certain requirements for seat belts and seat back padding for school buses.

Section 142 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law provides a broad definition of school bus and applies to passenger cars if used by a school district or by others on a for hire basis to transport pupils. This law specifies that these school bus es (including passenger cars) must meet the head form impact requirement as spelled out in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), 49 CFR Section 571.222 except the impact requirement shall not exceed 800 whereas the federal standard allows 1000.

We are interested in finding out if the automobile manufacturers are required to provide any specific test data that would indicate the actual axial acceleration of the head form as described in FMVSS Section 571.222, S5.3 Impact zone requirements or Sec tion 571.208, S6 Injury criteria. We are trying to determine if the information we are seeking is already available at one central point or if we must deal directly with each manufacturer individually.

Any assistance you can provide in helping us deal with this issue would be greatly appreciated.

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

STATE OF NEW YORK

10596 -- B

R. R. 872

IN ASSEMBLY

March 25, 1986

Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN, GRABER, PASSANNANTE, LASHER, BRODSKY, SCHMIDT -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BIANCHI, BURROWS, CONNELLY, EVE, HALPIN, HARENBERG, LIPSCHUTZ, NEWBURGER, VITALIANO -- read once and referred to the Committee on Transpo rtation -- reported and referred to the Committee on Rules -- Rules Committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to the Committee on Rules -- amended on the special order of third reading, ordered reprinted as amended, retaining its place on the special order of third reading

AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the education law, in relation to seat safety belts for school buses

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-three of the vehicle and traffic law is renumbered subdivision six and a new subdivision five is added to read as follows:

5. (a) Passenger seat safety belts for school buses. Every school bus, as defined in section one hundred forty-two of this chapter, manufactured for use in this state on and after July first, nineteen hundred eighty-seven, shall be designed so that all passenger seats on such vehicle are equipped with seat safety belts and increased seat back padding on passenger seats of a type and specification as approved by the commissioner of transportation through the adoption of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall provide that when any contactable surface of the school bus, as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 49 CFR Section 571.222, is impacted from any direction at twenty-two feet per second by the head form, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the head form impact requirement shall not exceed eight hundred.

(b) Passenger seat safety belts for existing school buses. Any school bus as defined in section one hundred forty-two of this chapter, which is scheduled for retrofitting pursuant to action by a board of education or board of trustees under section t hirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of the education law shall be retrofitted so that all passenger seats on such vehicles are equipped with seat safety belts and additional padding of a type and specification as approved by the commissioner of transportatio n through the adoption of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall provide that when any contactable surface of the school bus as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, 49CFR Section 571.222 is impacted from any direction at twenty-two feet per second by the head form, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the head form impact requirement shall not exceed eight hundred. Furthermore, the commissioner shall have the power thro ugh rules and regulations to exempt certain design school buses from retrofitting in granting such exemptions the commissioner shall consider safety factors, structural integrity of the school buses and any other items deemed necessary to preserve the sa fety and welfare of the school bus passengers. Provided further however that the commissioner of transportation shall not authorize retrofitting of any school bus manufactured prior to April first, nineteen hundred seventy-seven.

@ 2. Paragraph b of subdivision seven of section thirty-six hundred two of the eduction law, as amended by chapter fifty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred eighty-five, is amended to read as follows:

b. For the purposes of this apportionment, approved transportation expense shall be the actual expenditure incurred by a school district and approved by the commissioner (i) for those items for which an allowance would be provided under section thirt y-six hundred twenty-seven for the transportation of pupils as defined in section thirty-six hundred twenty-one if the district were eligible for transportation quota state aid under part two of this article, and (ii) for the transportation required or a uthorized pursuant to article eighty-nine, and (iii) for regional or joint transportation systems and (iv) for computerized bus routing services, (v) for the transportation of any pupil during the school day to and from programs at a board of cooperative educational services or to or from approved shared programs at other school districts, which programs may lead to a diploma or a high school equivalency diploma or to or from occupational education programs operated within the district, (vi) for the pur chase of two-way radios to be used on old and new school buses, and (vii) for the purchase of stop-arms as defined by subdivision twenty of section two of this chapter, to be used on old and new school buses and (viii) for the purchase and installation o f seat safety belts on school buses in accordance with the provisions of section thirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of this chapter. Approved transportation expense shall include employers social security contributions for transportation personnel. Approv ed transportation expense shall also include all salaries and retirement benefits related to transportation, except salaries and retirement benefits for assistant drivers on buses transporting nonhandicapped pupils, and health, life and other insurance p remiums for transportation personnel for whom salaries are approved, premiums for collision and other insurance coverage, uniforms, and equipment and other expenses as approved pursuant to regulations of the commissioner.

@ 3. Section thirty-eight hundred thirteen of such law is amended by adding a new subdivision four to read as follows. (Illegible Lines)

(Illegible Words) Safety belt usage. 1. A board of education or board of trustees may in its discretion, following a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether a resolution shall be adopted, provide for the use of seat safety belts on such s chool buses, in accordance with regulations and standards established by the commissioner under subdivision one of section thirty-six hundred twenty-three of this chapter.

2. Such public hearing, conducted upon reasonable notice, shall be held to consider: (a) whether the district shall install seat safety belts on buses purchased and/or contracted for prior to the effective date of this section and require their use; (b) when such installation shall be provided, and (c) whether use of seat safety belts shall be required on all school buses within the district so equipped after a date to be determined by the board of education or board of trustees.

3. Such hearings shall consider the effect of seat safety belts installation on the total number of students that can be transported on such buses.

4. Within twenty days after the public hearing, the board of education or board of trustees shall, by resolution, determine whether to require installation and use of seat safety belts on some or all school buses.

5. This section shall apply only to vehicles owned or leased by school districts and nonpublic schools, and to vehicles used to perform contracts with such school districts and nonpublic schools for the purpose of transporting school children for hir e.

6. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon boards of (Illegible Word) or boards of trustees to provide seat safety belts on school buses purchased or contracted for prior to the effective date of this section, nor shall any b oard of education or board of trustees be held liable for failure to provide seat safety belts pursuant to this section. A school board member or trustee shall have immunity from any (Illegible Words) liability that might otherwise be incurred or impose d is a result of the provisions of the section provided that such person (Illegible Words) in good faith. For the purpose of any proceeding, civil (Illegible Words) the good faith of any such person shall be presumed.

7. The premissions of this section shall not be apply to school districts which are using safety belts on school buses or have instilled or have (Illegible Word) for the installation of seat safety belts prior to the effective date of this section. @ 8. (Illegible Word) on eof section thirty-six hundred twenty-three of (Illegible Words) amended by chapter two hundred twenty-seven of the laws of (Illegible Words) seventy-nine, is amended to read as follows: (Illegible Lines) efficency and equipment of school buses used to transport pupils, with particular regard to the safety and convenience of such pupils and the suitability and adaptability of such school buses to the requirements of the school district. The capacity of such school buses shall not be in excess of the needs of the school district with reference to the particular route or routes traveled by such school bus. No school bus shall be purchased by a school district or used for the transportation of pupils unless and until it has bee n approved by the commissioner as complying with the rules, standards and specifications relating thereto. No bus manufactured after January first, nineteen hundred seventy-four shall be used to transport pupils under any contract with a school district or board of cooperative educational services unless it has been similarly approved by the commissioner, except that no such approval shall be required for buses used to transport pupils and also used to serve the general public under a certificate of pu blic convenience for the operation of an omnibus line, granted pursuant to the transportation law. The commissioner shall also establish and provide for the enforcement of rules and regulations requiring instruction on the use of seat safety belts as spe cified in subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-three of the vehicle and traffic law and section thirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of this chapter, drills in safe boarding and existing procedures and emergency drills to be conducted on all scho ol buses and shall emphasize specific hazards encountered by children during snow, ice, rain and other inclement weather. All such drills shall include instruction in the importance of orderly conduct by all school bus passengers. A minimum of three su ch drills shall be had on each school bus during the school year, the first to be conducted during the first week of the fall term.

@ 6. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law.

ID: 000644brownlee.drn

Mr. Rick Brownlee
Charlotte Bus and RV Sales
P.O. Box 218
Simpsonville, SC 29681

Dear Mr. Brownlee:

This responds to your e-mail message to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting information about sales of small buses to child care centers for school pick-up. You explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that your company manufactures new vehicles that meet the school bus crashworthiness safety standards, but do not have school bus flashing lights or stop arms. You wish to know whether child care centers may purchase and use these vehicles.

By way of background, keep in mind that Federal law restricts the types of new buses that may be sold to transport children to or from school or school-related events, but does not restrict the use of vehicles. State laws regulate the use of vehicles, including how school age children are to be transported. Presently, NHTSAs requirements do not permit the sale of vehicles such as yours to the centers for the purpose of picking up and dropping off students at schools. However, the adoption of proposed changes to those requirements would permit the sale of the vehicles for that purpose.




Present Requirements

NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30125 defines a "school bus" as any passenger motor vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

Your question regarding sales of new buses to child care centers has been addressed for the most part in the enclosed interpretation letter of May 9, 2001, to Collins Bus Corporation. In the Collins letter, we explain dealers' responsibilities in selling new buses to child care centers that will be using the vehicles to transport children to or from schools. (All the enclosures mentioned in the letter are provided.) NHTSAs longstanding position has been that child care centers in and of themselves are not Aschools@ within the meaning of our statute because of their primarily custodial, rather than educational, emphasis. However, when a child care center is providing transportation to or from school or school-related events, then the transportation constitutes the described action--transporting students to or from school--contemplated by the statute. As such, a dealer selling a new bus to a child care center for transporting students to or from school is obligated to sell a new "school bus."




Proposed Change ("Multifunction School Activity Bus")

You state that the child care centers "may be picking up and dropping off at schools." Because your vehicles do not have the flashing lights and stop arms, at present they could not be certified as meeting all school bus FMVSSs and thus cannot be sold to the centers to transport students to or from school. However, the agency is considering adding a new vehicle classification that would allow the sale of such a vehicle for those purposes.

On November 5, 2002 (67 FR 67373), NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a new school bus subcategory, the "Multifunction School Activity Bus" (MFSAB).An MFSAB would be a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,804 kilograms (15,000 pounds) or less that meets all school bus FMVSSs, except for S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. That is, the vehicle would be constructed as a school bus except for school bus flashing lamps and stop arms. The MFSABs would have a label stating that they are not to be used to pick school children up from or drop them off at home. If NHTSA issues a final rule establishing the MFSAB subcategory, you will be permitted to sell MFSABs to child care centers.




"Allowable Alternate Vehicles" (AAV)

You also asked: "Will the [allowable alternate vehicles] AAVs be acceptable for pupil transportation for day care centers who may be picking up and dropping off at schools, but who would have no need for the emergency lights and stop arm?" Your question relates to a final rule of January 18, 2001, in which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Head Start Bureau defined "allowable alternate vehicle" (AAV) as "a vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and 571.131." (See 45 CFR 1310.3.)

NHTSAs notice proposing the MFSAB is intended to create a vehicle that would meet the Head Start Programs definition of "allowable alternate vehicle."However, until NHTSA issues a final rule establishing the MFSAB, you may not sell an AAV to a child care center, if you know the center will "significantly" use the bus to transport children "to and from school or related events."




Sales of "Commercial Buses" that Meet Standard No. 220

You also ask whether a "typical 'commercial bus' that passes FMVSS 220 for school bus rollover and meets all safety standards for a commercial bus [would] be acceptable."The answer is no. The "commercial bus" you describe would not meet all of NHTSAs school bus crashworthiness safety standards. Accordingly, the vehicle would not be considered an MFSAB under the November 2002 proposal.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's school bus safety programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.2/6/03

ID: 04-005462drn

Major R. E. Brooks
Commander
Ohio State Highway Patrol
1970 West Broad Street
P.O. Box 182074
Columbus, OH 43118-2074

Dear Major Brooks:

This responds to your letter to Ms. Lisa Sullivan of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) Vehicle Research and Test Center. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You have two questions. First, you ask whether there is a conflict between 49 U.S.C. §30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative, and an Ohio Revised Code (ORC) provision requiring school buses no longer used for school transportation purposes to have their rear flashing lamps and stop arms removed. Second, you ask for our opinion on whether Ohio could consider school buses without the flashing rear lamps and school bus stop arms to be “multifunction school activity buses.”

Background

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, Lieutenant John Boster of your office stated that the Ohio School Bus Construction Standards Committee (the Committee) is considering recommending a state law that would reclassify school buses with their rear flashing lamps and stop arms removed to be “multifunction school activity buses.” Apparently, during the Committee’s discussion, a question arose as to an existing provision in the ORC regarding removing equipment from school buses. You provided a copy of the provision that states in part:

§ 4511.762. School bus no longer used for school purposes.

(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, no person who is the owner of a bus that previously was registered as a school bus that is used or is to be used exclusively for purposes other than the transportation of children, shall operate the bus or permit it to be operated within this state unless the bus has been painted a color different from that prescribed for school buses by section 4511.77 of the Revised Code and painted in such a way that the words “stop” and “school bus” are obliterated.

(B) Any church bus that previously was registered as a school bus and is registered under section 4503.07 of the Revised Code may retain the paint color prescribed for school buses by section 4511.77 of the Revised Code if the bus complies with all of the following: . . .

(2) The automatically extended stop warning sign required by section 4511.75 of the Revised Code is removed and the word “stop” required by section 4511.77 of the Revised Code is covered or obliterated;

(3) The flashing red and amber lights required by section 4511.771 of the Revised Code are covered or removed.

Is There a Conflict Between 49 U.S.C. §30122 and ORC 5411.762?

Your first question asks whether there is a conflict between the “make inoperative” provision of 49 U.S.C. §30122 and ORC 4511.762. Our answer is no.

49 USC §30122(b) states, in pertinent part: “A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter….”

Although the state law would contemplate the removal of school bus safety equipment, the equipment would be removed from vehicles that are no longer used as school buses. The buses will no longer have the school bus flashing lights required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, or the stop arm required by FMVSS No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices. The agency has stated in the past that modifications that change a vehicle from one type to another (e.g., from a hardtop to a convertible) do not violate the “make inoperative” prohibition, as long as the converted vehicle meets those safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new vehicle type. (See June 3, 1994, letter to Michael Marczynski, copy enclosed.) Similarly, we conclude that there would be no violation of §30122 if the bus’s function was changed from that of a school bus to that of a multifunction school activity bus, and the vehicle, as modified, met the FMVSSs applicable to multifunction school activity buses.

Note also that §30122 does not apply to owners making changes to their own vehicles. If the buses were being modified by their owners, §30122 would not be an issue.

Are TheyMultifunction School Activity Buses?

You also asked whether Ohio could consider school buses without the flashing rear lamps and school bus stop arms to be “multifunction school activity buses.” It is my understanding that the Ohio statute’s provisions would apply only to used school buses. NHTSA’s vehicle classification system (See definitions at 49 CFR §571.3) pertains to our certification requirements (at 49 CFR Part 567 Certification), which apply to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify their vehicles as meeting all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle type, and persons selling new vehicles must sell properly certified vehicles. The agency’s certification regulation and vehicle classification system do not apply to used vehicles. Thus, Ohio may characterize these used vehicles as “multifunction school activity buses” under State law, as long as State law does not conflict with Federal law. Based on the information you provided, it appears that Ohio’s definition of a multifunction school activity bus would be virtually the same as NHTSA’s definition, and we see no conflict between the two regulatory schemes.

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,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA: 222

ID: 6329

Mr. Allan E. McIntyre
Engineering and Product Development
Sprague Devices, Inc.
P. O. Box 389
Michigan City, IN 46360

Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter to the Federal Highway Administration asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield washing and wiping systems. Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) , including Standard No. 104, your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in this response.

Your letter concerns a standard issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and referenced in S4.2.2 of Standard No. 104. S4.2.2 specifies that each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus shall have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965 (as modified). You explain that you chair an SAE subcommittee that developed a new Recommended Practice J1944, "Truck & Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System," that you believe is more suitable for testing "commercial vehicles." You ask whether NHTSA would "allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS 104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written."

Your question raises two issues, both of which concern how a test procedure specified in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards may vary in practice from that described in the standard. The first issue is whether a vehicle manufacturer is obligated to test its vehicle only in the manner specified in Standard No. 104, i.e., only by using J942 and not the newly developed J1944. The answer is no. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. However, NHTSA does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of Standard No. 104, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

If NHTSA's compliance test of Standard No. 104 were to show an apparent noncompliance of a vehicle with the standard, the vehicle manufacturer would be asked to show the basis for its certification that its vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer would be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance.

We cannot tell you at this time whether a manufacturer's use of J1944 to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 104 would constitute "reasonable care." NHTSA is unable to judge what efforts constitute "reasonable care" outside of the course of a specific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

The second issue raised by your question is whether NHTSA is required to use J942 in the agency's compliance tests. The answer is yes, as long as J942 is incorporated into the test procedure of Standard No. 104. When conducting its compliance testing, NHTSA must precisely follow each of the specified test procedures and conditions set forth in the safety standard. If a different procedure or condition is desirable, the agency must undertake rulemaking to amend the standard to incorporate the desired change.

You ask in your letter about the procedure for amending Standard No. 104. NHTSA has a process whereby you can petition for a change to the FMVSS, including Standard No. 104. The petitioning procedure is outlined at 49 CFR part 552 Petitions for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders (copy enclosed). Very briefly, section 552.4 states that a petition should be addressed and submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Each petition must be written in English, have a heading that includes the word "Petition," set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change to the regulation is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the revised regulation which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner. After receiving the petition, NHTSA conducts a technical review to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the requested regulatory change will be issued at the end of the appropriate rulemaking proceeding.

You state that J1944, the newer SAE standard, is overall a "tougher" document than J942. You should be aware that NHTSA cannot automatically incorporate a "tougher" version of an incorporated document into the FMVSS. Before NHTSA incorporates an upgraded standard, NHTSA examines whether there is a safety need for the newer requirements. In its examination, NHTSA considers data from all sources, including the petitioner. If you decide to submit a petition, you ought to explain the safety need for the new requirements and provide an analysis of the increased costs likely to be associated with the new requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:104 d:2/3/95 While the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties for the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance free of charge.

ID: nht95-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan E. McIntyre -- Engineering and Product Development, Sprague Devices, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 6/9/94 letter from Allan E. McIntyre to Rodney Slater

TEXT: Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter to the Federal Highway Administration asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield washing and wiping systems. Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), including Standard No. 104, your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in this response.

Your letter concerns a standard issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and referenced in S4.2.2 of Standard No. 104. S4.2.2 specifies that each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus shall have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965 (as modified). You explain that you chair an SAE subcommittee that developed a new Recommended Practice J1944, "Truck & Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System," that you believe is more suitable for testing "commercial vehicles." You ask whether NHTSA would "allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS 104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written."

Your question raises two issues, both of which concern how a test procedure specified in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards may vary in practice from that described in the standard. The first issue is whether a vehicle manufacturer is obligated to test its vehicle only in the manner specified in Standard No. 104, i.e., only by using J942 and not the newly developed J1944. The answer is no. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use t o evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. However, NHTSA does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufact urer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of Standard No. 104, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

If NHTSA's compliance test of Standard No. 104 were to show an apparent noncompliance of a vehicle with the standard, the vehicle manufacturer would be asked to show the basis for its certification that its vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer would be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering anal yses, or other means) to ensure compliance. n1

n1 While the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties for the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance free of charge.

We cannot tell you at this time whether a manufacturer's use of J1944 to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 104 would constitute "reasonable care." NHTSA is unable to judge what efforts constitute "reasonable care" outside of the course of a specific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and abo ve all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

The second issue raised by your question is whether NHTSA is required to use J942 in the agency's compliance tests. The answer is yes, as long as J942 is incorporated into the test procedure of Standard No. 104. When conducting its compliance testing, NHTSA must precisely follow each of the specified test procedures and conditions set forth in the safety standard. If a different procedure or condition is desirable, the agency must undertake rulemaking to amend the standard to incorporate the desired change.

You ask in your letter about the procedure for amending Standard No. 104. NHTSA has a process whereby you can petition for a change to the FMVSS, including Standard No. 104. The petitioning procedure is outlined at 49 CFR part 552 Petitions for rulemak ing, defect, and noncompliance orders (copy enclosed). Very briefly, section 552.4 states that a petition should be addressed and submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Each petition must be written in English, have a heading that includes the word "Petition," set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change to the regulation is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the revised regulation which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner. After receiving the petition, NHTSA conducts a technical review to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the requested regulatory change will be issued at the end of the appropriate r ulemaking proceeding.

You state that J1944, the newer SAE standard, is overall a "tougher" document than J942. You should be aware that NHTSA cannot automatically incorporate a "tougher" version of an incorporated document into the FMVSS. Before NHTSA incorporates an upgrad ed standard, NHTSA examines whether there is a safety need for the newer requirements. In its examination, NHTSA considers data from all sources, including the petitioner. If you decide to submit a petition, you ought to explain the safety need for the new requirements and provide an analysis of the increased costs likely to be associated with the new requirements.

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

Sincerely,

ID: GF006103

Larry C. Dickinson, Ph.D.
Manager, Engineering & Technology
Martin Marietta Composites
PO Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622

Dear Mr. Dickinson:

This responds to your phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff and subsequent e-mail asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (FMVSS No. 223), S5.2.2 allows for "elastic deformation" as opposed to plastic deformation. Specifically, you ask whether the requirement that the energy absorption be accomplished by plastic deformation would preclude a material that returns to its original shape (i.e., elastic material).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

FMVSS No. 223 requires that underride guards fitted to new trailers and semitrailers provide a certain amount of energy absorption to lessen the crash forces on a passenger vehicle colliding from the rear. In creating FMVSS No. 223, the agency sought to balance concerns associated with rear impact guards being overly rigid and non-yielding in rear impact crashes against those associated with the guards being insufficiently rigid to prevent intrusion of a trailer into a vehicle occupant compartment. Accordingly, the standard requires that a certain minimum amount of force be absorbed through "permanent yielding" or plastic deformation of the guard. [1] S5.2.2 of the standard states:

" [a] guard  . . .shall absorb by plastic deformation within the first 125 mm of deflection at least 5,650 J of energy at each test location P3."
(emphasis added).

The standards energy absorption requirement cannot be met by elastic deformation for two reasons. First, the language of the standard calls for plastic deformation. Second, the prescribed method of measuring the required energy absorption greatly restricts any elastic qualities of the rear impact guard. Specifically, any energy that the guard returns to the force application device when the load is removed (i.e., the elastic component of the deformation) is subtracted from the total energy absorption for purposes of meeting the requirement.

The requirement that guards absorb energy by plastic deformation was to ensure that the guard did not subsequently return the absorbed energy to the colliding vehicle, because that energy return could increase the chance of death or injury to the occupants. Any immediate rebound occurring after the crash event could pose a threat to passenger vehicle occupants.

In an August 4, 1998, letter to Mr. Toms of Power Brace (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated that the plastic deformation requirement of S5.2.2 does not preclude use of certain elastic materials that return to their original shape very slowly (approximately 24 hours). Based on your conversation with Mr. Feygin, it is our understanding that your question concerned materials that returned to their original shape immediately after impact.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:223
d.10/21/03





---

[1] See Preamble to the Final Rule, January 24, 1996 (61 FR 2004 at 2011).

ID: 9559

Mr. Richard Kreutziger
Executive Director
New York State Bus Distributor Ass'n, Inc.
102 Grace Street
Penn Yan, NY 14527

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your FAX of January 12, 1994, requesting an information on the extent to which a state can adopt requirements for school buses which exceed the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This also responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the location requirements for a side emergency door exit in Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

Your January 12, 1994 FAX requested clarification of when a state could impose requirements on school buses which exceeded the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Specifically, you asked whether the state could impose such requirements on (1) a public school and (2) a contractor providing transportation for a public school. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable FMVSS that are different from the applicable FMVSS, except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law imposing higher requirements would be preempted under 103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. In addition, the agency has previously interpreted the phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" to include public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school. See, for example, February 20, 1987 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin (copy enclosed).

Your February 14, 1994 FAX asked whether the November 2 final rule permits a right side emergency exit door to be to the rear of the passenger compartment. The answer is yes. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#217 d:3/28/94

ID: nht94-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dan Neaga -- Johnson Controls, Inc.; Dianna Sabo -- Johnson Controls, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 11/1/93 From Dan Neaga And Dianna Sabo

TEXT: Dear Mr. Neaga and Ms. Sabo:

This responds to your letter asking about a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for built-in child restraints that use "the same seat back surface as the adult occupant." I apologize for the de lay in responding.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a May 26, 1994 telephone call to you from Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, about your letter's statement that the information you sent us is confidential. Ms. Fujita explained that letters requesting interpretati ons of our FMVSSs are public information, but suggested that we could return your sketches to you and make publicly available only your cover letter. You agreed this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts. Accordingly, Ms . Fujita has mailed your sketches to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 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 or pass on the compliance of the vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. 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.

You ask if your understanding is correct that "lateral support of the side of the child's torso is not required by FMVSS 213." The answer is yes. The torso impact protection requirement of S5.2.2.1(b) of Standard 213 specifies requirements for "[e]ach s ystem surface provided for support

2

of the side of the child's torso" (emphasis added). The preamble for the final rule adopting S5.2.2.1(b) explains: "The specifications do not require manufacturers to incorporate side supports in their restraints, they only regulate the surfaces that th e manufacturer decides to provide so that they distribute crash forces over the child's torso." 44 FR 72131, 72135; December 13, 1979.

Please note that NHTSA determines independently from the manufacturer whether a particular surface is provided for side support. The determination is based on factors such as the design and intended use of the restraint, and the advertising literature f or the restraint. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot avoid complying with S5.2.2.1(b) simply by asserting that a side surface was not provided for side support. However, with regard to a built-in restraint such as yours that uses the same seat back sur face as the adult occupant and where "no lateral support other than the one offered to the adult occupant is provided," it does not appear that the child restraint incorporates side supports subject to S5.2.2.1(b).

If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht76-4.22

DATE: 08/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MOTAC Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Motac's June 24, 1976, request to know why a trailer with a flat cargo-carrying surface that is not more than 40 inches above the ground is considered a "heavy hauler trailer" (as defined in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems), while a trailer with an inclined cargo-carrying surface that is more than 40 inches above the ground over the fifth wheel attachment point is not considered a heavy hauler trailer. You also request confirmation that the period for exclusion of heavy hauler trailers from the standard has been extended to September 1, 1977.

At the time that the "heavy hauler trailer" exclusion was implemented, the agency considered and rejected the addition of trailers with inclined beds to the excluded category. I have enclosed a copy of the notice that implemented the exclusion, which states "The NHTSA has concluded that trailers with beds higher than 40 inches (including trailers whose beds are below 40 inches over the wheels but higher than 40 inches over the fifth wheel) can accommodate the new larger brake packages available at this time." Of course the exclusion was intended to and does apply to the traditional trailer with a gooseneck and a flat cargo-carrying surface that is not more than 40 inches above the ground. The "double-drop semi", the "stock drop frame flat-bed", and the "40'-0" single axle drop frame platform semi" you describe appear to qualify as heavy hauler trailers.

I have enclosed a copy of the amendment of Standard No. 121 that extends the date for exclusion of heavy hauler trailers to September 1, 1977.

Yours truly,

Enclosures

ATTACH.

June 24, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

Subject: Clarification regarding installation of FMVSS-121 brakes on "Low Bed Heavy Hauler Trailers."

Dear Sir,

We would appreciate further clarification if FMVSS-121 brakes are required or are exempt on the Drop Frame Platform Semi-Trailer per our attached drawing SK-7229-W3. This Drop Frame Platform Semi-Trailer is also made with Tandem axles and a platform height of 39".

In accordance with my letter of Aug. 7, 1975 addressed to Mr. James B. Gregory and his reply "N40-30 of Sept. 8, 1975 (copies attached) I interpret that this type of trailer is exempt from the S-121 brakes as it complies to the definition of a Low Platform Heavy Hauler Trailer."

We also received from T.T.M.A., a copy of your letter, file No. N40-30 RFBPI (copies attached) with two sketches of similar type trailers, stating that they do not qualify for exemption of the S-121 brake system.

Since the greater majority of the load is carried on the main deck, which I interpret as the "Primary Cargo Carrying Surface" and only a small portion of the load can be carried on the gooseneck platform, I analyze that this complies with your definition of Low Platform Heavy Hauler Trailers.

Also please advise if your Docket No. 75-16, Notice 5 has become effective to extend the installation of the S-121 brake system on Heavy Hauler Trailers until Sept. 1, 1977 as I do not have a confirming copy in my files.

Yours very truly,

Jack A. Johnson -- Chief Engineer, MOTAC, INC.

Enc.