ID: nht72-3.48

DATE: 10/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Charles E. West

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of September 18, 1972, to Senator Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman, Committee on (Illegible Words) your automatic seat belt system has been referred to this office for reply.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (copy enclosed) requires complete passive restraint systems in cars manufactured after August 15, 1973. This standard, as well as most of our standards, is written in performance terms and does not require the use of any specific device. Manufacturers are free to employ any system that will meet the requirements of the standard without any voluntary section on the part of the occupant, such as fastening a seat belt.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not generally engaged in hardware development, but rather, directs its research efforts toward the development of technical data to form the basis for motor vehicle safety performance standards. Perhaps you might care to contact vehicle manufacturers to see if they would be interested in your automatic belt system.

I am placing a copy of your letter in our Public Docket No. 69-7, which contains information relative to occupant restraint systems. We appreciated receiving the description of your system and your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht73-5.27

DATE: 10/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson for L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Schultz, Evans and Burns

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1973 to Secretary Brinegar, concerning outside rear view mirrors.

The existing standard (No. 111) on Rearview Mirrors, is found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations @ 571.111. Paragraph S3.2 establishes requirements for outside mirrors. This standard applies to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured since January 1, 1968, and establishes requirements for original equipment mirrors. It does not apply to mirrors manufactured for the aftermarket.

SINCERELY,

SCHULTZ, EWAN AND BURNS

September 28, 1973

Claude S. Brinegar, Secretary of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am anticipating a possible suit against one of the American automotive manufacturers. The basis of this suit would be the dangerous design and manufacture of an outside side view mirror.

Pursuant to the Federal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Law Chapter 38 USCA @ 1392(a), your office is to establish motor vehicle safety standards. I would greatly appreciate all standards promulgated by your office pertaining to side view mirrors which were in effect for the 1973 model year.

Yours truly,

William C. Burns

ID: nht92-4.46

DATE: August 7, 1992

FROM: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.; Signature by P.P. F. Nakayama

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Location of R/C and CHMSL equipped on passenger cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to S. Watanabe (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to ask you about the legality of 2 mounting locations (as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in attachment) of R/C (tail & stop lamp) and CHMSL (center high mounted stop lamp) equipped on passenger cars for U.S. of less than 80 inches overall width.

In Fig. 1, for R/C, its height above road surface measured from center of item on vehicle at curb weight is 72 inches, and CHMSL is located 3 inches below the rear window. Wlile in Fig. 2, the height of R/C is 72 inches same as Fig. 1, CHMSL is located above the rear window and between two R/C located on each side of the vertical centerline.

We think the mounting locations of these lamps shown in Fig. 1 & 2 conform to the location requirements of table IV in FMVSS 108.

It would be very much appreciated for us to have your opinion about the legality of locations of these lamps.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: nht76-5.6

DATE: 01/30/76

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

TO: Brenda Nolan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: A copy of your October 21, 1975, letter to Peterson Baby Products has been forwarded to this agency by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for our consideration. In your letter, you indicated to the Peterson Company that you have experienced problems with their "safety shell" child carrier as follows: a child can climb out of one model, vehicle seat belts do not readily attach to one model, while in both models, directions for adjustment of a tether strap appear inadequate, the child harness system does not adjust easily, and the padding materials are insufficiently durable.

Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, regulates certain safety aspects of the type of child restraint system that seats a child for transportation in a motor vehicle. Peterson products subject to the requirements of the standard have been tested under NHTSA enforcement programs without failure.

Standard No. 213 does not include durability requirements for the padding or other material of the device. The standard does establish requirements for the retention of a simulated child's torso in the system when it is subject to frontal crash forces. This test, however, would not ensure that a child would be retained in the system if it attempted to release itself from the system. A "child proof" system would make routine release by the parent extremely difficult.

As for belt webbing, the present standard only requires that installation instructions be provided with the system, and that the webbing fit snugly those children for which the system is recommended. There are no requirements for the ease of seat belt hardware operation.

The NHTSA has proposed a more comprehensive child restraint standard that would regulate all child restraint systems, and would subject them to testing under dynamic loads that should result in upgraded performance of child restraint systems. I have forwarded your letter to the public docket on this rulemaking so that your views will be considered in the rulemaking process.

SINCERELY,

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

December 29, 1975

Brenda Nolan

Dear Ms. Nolan:

The Consumer Affairs Division of the California Attorney General's Office has forwarded a copy of your letter concerning a children's car seat manufactured by Peterson Baby Products to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The Commission has jurisdiction to regulate children's car seats under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. However, it is our understanding that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation now has in effect safety regulations for children's restraint systems used in motor vehicles. The NHTSA Chief Counsel has informed us that NHTSA will issue in the near future an amendment to its existing standard for children's restraint systems (FMVSS #213).

Because of NHTSA's expertise in this matter, we have forwarded your letter to them for consideration and investigation of the safety problems described in your letter.

Michael A. Brown General Counsel

CC: OFC. OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA; OFC. OF THE ATTY. GENERAL

PETERSON BABY PRODUCTS

OCTOBER 21, 1975

DEAR SIRS:

WE PURCHASED TWO PETERSON SAFETY SHELLS, ONE IN DECEMBER 1974, THE OTHER IN APRIL 1975. THIS LETTER DESCRIBES THE PRODUCT'S FAILURES WHICH HAVE MADE THE SHELLS ALMOST UNUSABLE, AND ASKS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION ON YOUR PART.

OUR MAJOR COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE TODDLER SYSTEM, WHICH OUR YOUNGEST DAUGHTER HAS BEEN ABLE TO CLIMB OUT OF SINCE SHE WAS 9 1/2 MONTHS OLD. ACCORDING TO YOUR DIRECTIONS SHE SHOULD BE IN IT FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR. ALSO, THE CAR SEATBELT MUST BE STRAPPED SO TIGHTLY AROUND THE GUARD OF THE TODDLER SYSTEM, THAT IT TAKES A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER TO TIGHTEN IT OR SHE SIMPLY PUSHES IT OUT OF POSITION. THIS IS A FINGER PINCHER. . . AND PROBABLY NOT VERY SAFE. OUT OF NECESSITY SHE IS NOW IN THE CHILD SYSTEM, WITH THE CHILD'S HARNESS WHICH IS MUCH TOO LARGE, AND A FAILING PAD AND ALL.

OUR SECOND COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE PADS. THE SNAPS ON BOTH PADS HAVE PULLED OUT IN VARIOUS PLACES, ALLOWING THE PADS TO MOVE AROUND, PUTTING STRESS ON THE SLITS FOR THE HARNESS SYSTEM. THIS HAS RIPPED THE SLITS. ONE PAD WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED IN NINE MONTHS AND THE OTHER WILL BE SHORTLY IN SIX MONTHS. ANOTHER OBSERVATION: THERE WAS SKIMPING ON THE LENGTH OF THE PAD AND THE KIND OF FABRIC USED IS IMPROPER FOR THIS KIND OF THING. ALSO, OUR IN-LAW'S NEW SHELL LASTED THREE WEEKS UNTIL THE COVERING ON ONE WING SPLIT WIDE OPEN.

BECAUSE THESE SEATS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF FOUR YEARS, WE FEEL PETERSON SHOULD REPLACE THE TWO PADS ON OUR SEATS. WE LOOK FOREWARD TO A PROMPT REPLY FROM YOU ON THESE REPLACEMENTS.

OUR THIRD COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE DIRECTIONS FOR FASTENING THE SIDE RESTRAINT STRAP. THEY ARE INADEQUATE. ACCORDING TO YOUR DIRECTIONS THIS STRAP IS VERY EASILY LOSSENED TO CREATE LOTS OF SLACK, SIMPLY, BY PULLING THE END OF THE STRAP. THIS WE CONSIDER VERY SERIOUS ENCLOSED ARE OUR REVISED DIRECTIONS IN WHICH YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED.

OUR FOURTH COMPLAINT: THE HARNESS SYSTEMS ARE DIFFICULT TO ADJUST TO DIFFERENT THICKNESSES OF OUTER CLOTHING. WHILE WE'RE UNFORTUNATE TO LIVE IN A CLIMATE WHERE IT MAY BE 80 DEGREES ONE DAY AND 35 DEGREES THE NEXT, CAN'T THESE ADJUSTMENTS BE MADE EASIER? MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT IS HARD TO GET THE BABY OUT OF THE INFANT SYSTEM QUICKLY IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE WHOLE SHELL. ALSO, THE CLASP ON THE CHILD'S HARNESS IS A (ILLEGIBLE WORDS). SAAB. WE PREFER THE VOLKSWAGEN. ONLY WE CAN'T FIT BOTH SEATS INTO THE BACK AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SIDE RESTRAINT STRAP STUD FOR RIGHT REAR POSITIONING.

UNTIL TWO MONTHS AGO WE WERE RELATIVELY PLEASED WITH THE TODDLER AND CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS. EXCEPT FOR THE ABSENCE OF THE PAD AND AWKWARD ADJUSTMENT OF THE HARNESS, THE CHILD'S SYSTEM IS OK. WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT THE TODDLER SYSTEM NOR MUCH ABOUT THE INFANT SYSTEM.

OUR CHILDREN ARE NEITHER OVERLY ACTIVE OR DESTRUCTIVE, YET THE PADS LASTED ONLY NINE MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS RESPECTIVELY. AGAIN, WE ASK FOR REPLACEMENT PADS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

WE LOOK FOREWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU AND RESOLVING THIS MATTER.

SINCERELY,

BRENDA NOLAN

COPIES TO: CHILD WORLD, CHELMSFORD, MASS; CONSUMER REPORTS, MT. VERNON, N.Y.; CONSUMER AFFAIRS DIV., ATTY. GEN.'S OFC., BOSTON, MASS.

Our directions for the side restraint strap.

Seatbelt anchor

(Graphics omitted)

CONSUMER AFFAIRS DIVISION ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BOSTON, MASS.

OCTOBER 21, 1975

DEAR SIRS:

WE HAVE JUST WRITTEN A LETTER TO PETERSON BABY PRODUCTS, P.O. BOX 3974, NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, 91605. WE THOUGH THAT OUR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CAR SEAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO YOU. THEREFORE WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF THAT LETTER.

BRENDA NOLAN

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Peterson Baby Products

December 5, 1975

GENTLEMEN: The Consumer Protection Unit of the Attorney General's Office has received the enclosed complaint relating to your firm. We understand that there are always two sides to a problem, and we would appreciate your prompt review of this matter.

We do not represent the complainant. However, we analyze all complaints to determine whether grounds exist for legal action under California consumer protection laws. Your response to each of the factual allegations in the complaint will help us determine whether legal action on our part is warranted.

We would appreciate receiving your response within the next thirty days. We also request that you send a copy of your response to the complainant. Please feel free to attach any documents which you think are relevant in explaining your position. Naturally in sending you this complaint, we make no assumption to the truth of the allegations.

EVELLE J. YOUNGER Attorney General

Consumer Protection Analyst

cc: CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

ID: WarningLabel-GF

Mr. Gerald Plante
Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America, Inc.
PO Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your e-mail of December 19, 2002, concerning certain labeling requirements found in S4.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). Specifically you ask what constitutes the "message area" in S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii) and S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii) and the corresponding Figures 8 and 9. Since your correspondence was received, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has added an additional label that is depicted in Figure 11. [1] The new figure mirrors Figure 8 in all respects except for the addition of a new information bullet, and the two labels will be considered together.

S4.5.1(b)(2), S4.5.1(c), S4.5.1(e)(2) detail the warning label requirements for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The required sun visor warning label must conform in content with the label depicted in Figure 8 or Figure 11 of the standard and must also comply with the formatting requirements specified in S4.5.1(b)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(2)(iv). [2] S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii) requires that the message area within the warning label be no less than 30 cm². S4.5.1(b)(2)(iii) contains a separate requirement that the pictogram be no less than 30 mm (1.2 in) in length. For the removable dashboard label depicted in Figure 9, the message area within the warning label must be no less than 30 cm² (S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii)). Figures 8 and 11 do not have a clear demarcation between the text area and the pictogram. Further, part of the required text in Figures 8 and 11, "even with advanced air bags," is located directly above the pictogram.

In your correspondence you offer four possible interpretations of the term "message area" for Figures 8 and 11 and three possible interpretations of the term for Figure 9.

For Figures 8 and 11 the possible options are as follows:
1) the entire label is the message area;
2) all of the label other than the yellow heading area is the message area;
3) all of the label other than the yellow heading area and the pictogram is the message area; or
4) only the portion of the label with bulleted information is the message area.

For Figure 9 the possible options are as follows:
1) the entire label is the message area;
2) all of the label other than the yellow heading area is the message area; or
3) all of the label other than the yellow heading area and the phrase "even with advanced air bags" is the message area.

The message area described in S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii) refers to the text of the label and the introductory statement of "even with advanced air bags," located above the text and the pictogram, but not to the pictogram. We construe the statement "even with advanced air bags" as a part of the message area because it is not shaded yellow and thus is not part of the heading area. The message area for Figure 9 is all of the label other than the yellow header.

Figures 8, 9, and 11 are based on the sun visor air bag labels depicted in Figures 6a, 6b, and 7 of the standard, which were adopted in 1996. Figures 6a and 6b contain a vertical line separating the message area and the pictogram, although the requirement for these lines is not contained within the regulatory text. Figure 7 depicts a temporary dashboard label with no pictogram. In adopting the new label requirements, NHTSA specified separate dimensions for the message area and the pictogram area. In the preamble to the 1996 Final Rule introducing new label requirements, NHTSA stated that "[t]he agency expects that manufacturers will ensure the English text of each labels fills the 30 cm² area." See 61 Fed. Reg. 60206 at 60210, (Nov. 27, 1996). This statement demonstrates NHTSA's intent that the 30 cm² message area contain only text.

When NHTSA published the advanced air bag final rule on May 12, 2000, it adopted the new Figures 8 and 9 with the same minimum message area and pictogram dimensions as the earlier adopted figures. The agency had no intention of reducing the size of the required warning labels. If the pictogram were considered part of the message area in Figures 8 and 11, the effect would be a significant reduction in the minimum size requirements for the English text of the label. Such a reduction in size was not contemplated by NHTSA.

In order to clarify how to measure the message area, we are providing an explanation of the following parameters. The "message area" consists of the total label area minus the yellow heading area and the pictogram. The pictogram area is enclosed on the left side and bottom by the edge of the label. The right side of the pictogram is defined by a vertical line midway between the rightmost edge of the pictogram and the left most edge of the text, including any bullets. The top edge of the pictogram area is defined by a horizontal line midway between the uppermost edge of the pictogram and the lowermost edge of the text (see Figure 1).

S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii) requires that a message area within the Figure 9 warning label be no less than 30 cm². Unlike the aforementioned warning label specified in S4.5.1(b) and Figures 8 and 11, the S4.5.1(e) warning label does not have a pictogram. Rather, it contains only a yellow heading area and a message area. As with Figures 8 and 11, the statement "even with advanced air bags" is a part of the message area because it is not shaded yellow and thus is not part of the heading area. Accordingly, the message area comprises the entire lower part of label below the heading area shaded in yellow (see Figure 2).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:208
d.5/6/03





Figure 1. "message area" is represented by broken lines



• NOTE: the above diagram is not to scale and does not include the required pictogram and shading





Figure 2. "message area" is represented by broken lines




• NOTE: the above diagram is not to scale and does not include the required shading





---

[1] See 68 FR 504, January 6, 2003, NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-02-14165.

[2] Figure 11 will become the mandatory label on all vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements on or after September 1, 2003. Prior to that date, vehicle manufacturers may use either Figure 8 or Figure 11 for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements.

ID: 1982-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (Confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays. You have asked whether the standard permits three-wheeled motorcycles to be equipped with a reverse gear.

Standard No. 123 applies only to motorcycles with handlebars, which are generally those machines with two wheels. As the standard is silent with respect to reverse gears, the agency considers that a manufacturer of a three-wheeled motorcycle with handlebars may provide and locate a reverse gear change mechanism wherever he deems appropriate.

This office can offer no comments on three-wheeled motorcycle safety in general. However, I suggest that you contact NHTSA's Office of Research and Development. Several years ago it conducted a study of three-wheeled vehicles, and as I recall, a configuration with two wheels in front and one behind was found to offer greater stability than the converse.

We shall delete your name and that of your company from the publicly available copies of this letter, in accordance with your wish for confidentiality.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: lieberman.ztv

Edward Lieberman, P.E.
President
KLD Associates, Inc.
300 Broadway
Huntington Station, NY 11746

Dear Mr. Lieberman:

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 2003, containing a proposal to conduct a field evaluation of a supplementary motor vehicle lighting system. This system is called the "Sunlight Safety System" and was developed by Harold Caine. You have requested "a variance of FMVSS 108."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to exempt a vehicle only from complying with one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time it is manufactured. When a vehicle has been sold and is in use on the public roads, it becomes subject to applicable State laws, and, if it is a commercial vehicle used in interstate commerce, the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. You should consult these authorities to determine whether use of this supplemental lighting system is legal on state and interstate highways.

NHTSA has had occasion over the years to comment on Mr. Caines lighting systems. I enclose a copy of our letter of November 16, 1999, to Mr. Terry Wagar of the Department of Motor Vehicles, State of New York, which represents the agencys most recent views on the subject.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: FMCSA
ref:108
d.5/27/03

ID: 8815

Mr. Ernest Farmer
Director, Pupil Transportation
Tennessee State Department of Education
Office of Commissioner
Nashville, TN 37243-0375

Dear Mr. Farmer:

We have received your letter of June 25, 1993, with respect to your plan to retrofit three school buses with strobe lights for "the traditional incandescent lights currently used in the eight light overhead warning system on school buses." You ask whether this equipment would "conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 108."

Yes, the substitute system would not conform to S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 because it is not a school bus signal lamp system meeting the requirements of SAE J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964. Moreover, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(a)(2)(A)) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. We assume for purposes of this interpretation that the State is the owner of the school buses, and owns the repair facilities where the conversion will occur. Under these circumstances, there is no Federal legal prohibition against the State's conversion to the strobe light system if the work is performed in its own repair shops.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:7/l3/93

ID: nht89-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/89

FROM: ROBERT C. CRAIG -- QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER COSCO INC

TO: GEORGE L. PARKER -- DIRECTOR OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION - ENFORCEMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION N.H.T.S.A.

TITLE: 49 CFR 571.213; STANDARD NO. 213 CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS. @ 5.5.1. LABELING; RULING: INCORPORATE THE METRIC SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENTS INTO THE STANDARD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/17/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO ROBERT C. CRAIG, REDBOOK A33(2), STANDARD 213

TEXT: Dear Mr. Parker:

Cosco, Inc. has been purchased by Dorel Industries, Inc. of Montreal, Quebec. With the purchase, Cosco is making child restraints for the United States and Canada. Canada requires the metric system of measurements on all child restraint labels and instr uctions. To meet the Canadian requirement, Cosco wishes to incorporate the metric system of measurements on their present labels and instructions.

Example: "This child restraint is designed for use only by children who weigh 40 pounds (18 kg) or less and are 40 inches (1 M) or less in height."

Cosco requests permission to include metric equivalents on all Cosco child restraints and confirmation that use of metric equivalents as described above is in conformance with the requirements of FMVSS 213.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration of the above. If there are any questions or information needed, please contact me directly.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/89

FROM: KAREN E. FINKEL -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

TO: JOAN TILGHMAN -- NCC-20 NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/27/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KAREN E. FINKEL, REDBOOK A33(2), STANDARD 217

TEXT: Dear Joan:

As we discussed on the phone earlier this week, NSTA members (who are school bus contractors) have a question regarding push-out windows on school buses.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Standards, Sec. 393.61, states that push-out windows are required and that they must conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. However, in reading FMVSS 217, there are different requirements for buses and school buses. School buses are not required to have push-out windows. Therefore, the question arises whether school buses being used by school bus contractors in interstate commerce, for other than to and from school work, must have push-out windows.

Because many contractors are purchasing buses now in order to have delivery for the coming school year, and they do not know whether to purchase them with push-out windows or not, I would appreciate a very response to this question.

Thank you for your assistance in clearing up this confusion. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,