ID: 1985-01.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Le Olin Chamberlain

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Le Olin Chamberlain 226 N. Williamson Road Blossburg, PA 16912

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a school bus contractor is automatically exempt from the Federal school bus safety standards if that contractor is a Public Utilities Commission (PUC) certificate carrier. The answer is no.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct NHTSA to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. A new "bus" (i.e., a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 persons or more) which is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or school-related events is a "school bus" under our regulatory definition. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus who knows that the vehicle will be significantly used as a school bus must ensure that the vehicle complies with the Federal school bus safety standards.

You stated in your letter that a school bus contractor has notified your school district that "under his PUC rights he is exempt from Federal Safety Regulations." For the reasons discussed below, such a statement is inaccurate. Buses purchased by a PUC certificate carrier are not per se exempt from the Federal school bus safety standards.

It is correct that the regulatory definition of "school bus" issued by this agency under the Vehicle Safety Act excludes a bus "designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." (49 CFR 571.3) However, the exclusion does not give persons who sell new buses to common carrier operators the license to disregard the school bus safety standards when they sell the buses. This is because the applicability of the standards to a bus is determined by its intended use, not by the fact that the purchaser has common carrier operations or holds a PUC certificate. Whether a particular bus must comply with the school bus safety standards depends on the intended use of that bus, as determined at the point of the vehicle's sale. If the seller of the school bus knows that the vehicle will be significantly used by the PUC carrier as a school bus, he must sell a bus that complies with the Federal school bus standards or be subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Sept. 5, 1984

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I talked with Mr. David Soul today in connection with a particular problem concerning van transportation in my school district. Mr. Soul asked that I place this particular question in writing and direct it to you for opinion.

August 1, 1984, my school district advertised to the local school bus contractors for price per mile bids for extra-curricular activity transportation, which includes the sports program. I submitted a bid for van transportation, at my local high school specifying ten passenger capacity maximum, and was awarded the bid.

Now, another contractor, in the school district whom is also a PUC certificate carrier, has notified school officials that I am running illegal because I don't have PUC rights for vans and he will supply the vans for school use under his charter PUC rights and that they can use his 15 passenger vans because under PUC he is exempt from Federal Safety Regulations. Consequently, now the school is using one 15 passenger van 6 days a week for football practice and their Sat. games. This is a school sport, funded by the school district, general fund account, billing approved and paid on a monthly basis by the district board of directors.

Specific question is:

Would a PUC carrier be exempt Federal Safety Regulations for this sport program and be allowed to use 15 passenger vans for transportation on a everyday basis for the duration of the particular sport season? Van is a paratransit vehicle, BA bus plate, and does not conform to type A or B school bus standard.

Note: 1st day- 13 passengers & driver, 2nd day- 18 passengers & driver, 3rd day, 10 passengers & driver.

Your opinion in this question will be greatly appreciated. Also, could you supply me with any updates on rulings concerning van transportation.

Sincerely,

Le Olin Chamberlain 226 N. Williamson Road Blossburg, Pa. 16912

ID: 1985-02.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Dick Kruse -- Secondary Schools Principals Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dick Kruse Secondary Schools Principals Association 1904 Association Drive Reston, Virginia 22091

This responds to your May 1, 1985 telephone call to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applying to buses used for school extracurricular activities. You were especially interested in the agency's regulatory definition of "school bus" which was adopted pursuant to enactment of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 93-492; hereinafter "the Schoolbus Safety Amendments").

In the Schoolbus Safety Amendments, Congress defined "school bus" as:

a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.

The legislative history of the Schoolbus Safety Amendments shows that Congress chose to specify a broad definition of a school bus, so as to require vehicles used solely for extracurricular activities to meet the same safety standards as buses used to transport the children to and from school. Congress intended NHTSA to set forth a regulatory definition of a school bus that encompassed any bus likely to be significantly used for student transportation.

The agency's definition of a school bus is in accordance with the Congressional definition of that term. The agency definition is found in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). A school bus is defined as:

a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Our regulations further define "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

The enclosed materials include a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60035; December 31, 1975) amending the agency's definition of school bus to conform to the mandate of the Schoolbus Safety Amendments, and materials on the legislative history of Title II of the Amendments, Schoolbus Safety. Pursuant to your request, I have also enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and information describing our motor vehicle safety standards and how you csn obtain copies of those standards.

You expressed an interest in Secretary Dole's response to Representative Cheney's recent letter regarding NHTSA's regulations for activity buses used by school districts. A copy of that letter is enclosed.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 MAY 14, 1985 The Honorable Dick Cheney House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Dick:

Thank you for your letter requesting clarification of the Department's regulations pertaining to the use by school districts of commercial-type buses as activity buses. appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

You requested clarification of whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the sale of a used commercial-type bus to a school district for use on activity trips. The Act only applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Thus, persons selling a used bus to a Wyoming school district are not subject to the Act's requirement to sell certified school buses, and a used commercial-type bus, regardless of its model year, may be sold as an activity bus.

You also had several questions about Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. You are correct that states have discretion to adopt all or part of Standard No. 17, and that the standard has no direct effect on the purchase of used buses by local school districts. Congress has given the Department the discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While the Department has stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistant with Standard No. 17, the Department has not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

You asked whether Wyoming school districts can obtain an administrative waiver from the requirements of Standard No. 17 if Wyoming has adopted the standard as its own policy. Since a state has the discretion to adopt and amend Standard No. 17 as it determines to be necessary for its highway safety program, the effect of Standard No. 17 on Wyoming school districts is a matter for the state to decide. An administrative waiver from NHTSA is therefore not necessary.

I trust this letter has clarified our regulations for school buses.

With best wishes. Sincerely, Elizabeth Hanford Dole

ID: 1985-02.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: George L. Simonton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 28, 1985 George L. Simonton, Esq. Simonton & Simonton 1092 Sheridan Avenue Cody, Wyoming 82414-3594 Dear Mr. Simonton: Thank you for your letter on behalf of the Park County School District #6. You asked whether the school district could obtain an exemption from this agency in order to operate the used American Eagle bus that it purchased to transport school children to extracurricular activities. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. We are familiar with the issues facing the Park County School District. Mr. B. Bruce Bennion, the Assistant Superintendent of Schools, asked Senator Alan Simpson to look into he matter, and Senator Simpson wrote to us on December 5, 1984. We have informed Senator Simpson that there is nothing under Federal law which would prohibit the school district from operating the used bus that they purchased. Since Park County is not prohibited from operating its used school bus, your request for an exemption from the Federal regulations is unnecessary. Secretary Dole has also recently written Senators Simpson and Wallop and Representative Cheney clarifying the Department's regulations pertaining to the use by school districts of commercial-type buses as activity buses. A copy of the Secretary's letter is enclosed. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss with you NHTSA's regulations on school buses. To begin, there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect a school district's choice of school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, and windows and windshields. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date. If Park County bought a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer had to certify that the bus complied with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. An American Eagle type bus is not manufactured to comply with these standards, and could therefore not be sold for use as a new school bus. Since Park County bought a used bus, however, the Vehicle Safety Act standards do not apply. There is nothing under that Act to prevent the school district from buying a used American Eagle bus for school use. There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if Wyoming has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked "School Bus." We have ruled that the States should apply these specifications to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation. We have also issued instructions under HSPS 17 that any bus manufactured after April 1, 1977, the effective date of the motor vehicle safety standards on school buses, should comply with those standards. I want to stress that HSPS 17 has no direct effect on the purchase of used buses by local school districts. HSPS 17 will affect Park County only if Wyoming has adopted it and if Wyoming accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If Wyoming chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would no insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us the discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. Having said this, I will conclude by restating the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of the inter-city buses, but it has safety features that the inter-city buses lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when they decide to buy a used school bus. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Diane K. Steed Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Don Fightmaster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 12, 1985 Mr. Don Fightmaster Director Division of Pupil Transportation Kentucky Department of Education Capital Plaza Tower Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Dear Mr. Fightmaster: Thank you for your letter to former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt concerning the school bus regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I regret the delay in our response. In your letter, you state that Kentucky is planning to contract with commercial bus companies to use Greyhound-type buses to transport deaf and blind students to and from State-operated schools for the deaf and blind. The buses would be used on established routes for 9 round trips per year. You asked for NHTSA's opinion regarding the leasing of Greyhound-type buses in this manner. I would like to begin by explaining that there are two sets of regulations issued by NHTSA that affect buses used for school transportation. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, "school bus" is defined as "passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools..." (Emphasis added.) The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers of new school buses and their dealers or distributors from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Federal law would prohibit the sale of new Greyhound buses for use as school buses because those buses as currently manufactured do not meet the requirements of our safety standards for school buses. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the applicability of the school bus safety standards to a particular vehicle is determined by looking at the intended use of the new vehicle at the time of its initial sale. Buses that are not likely to be "significantly used" to transport school students are not "school buses" subject to our school bus safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act would not prohibit leasing companies from leasing Greyhound buses to Kentucky for school transportation, if the buses, at the time of their initial sale, were not "likely to be significantly used" to transport school students. those buses would not be "school buses" subject to the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, new buses that are likely to be significantly used to transport school children would be school buses, and the parties selling the vehicles are required to sell complying school buses. If a leasing company were to buy a new bus, intending to use it to transport your students on 9 round trips a year, then we believe the use of the bus for school transportation would be "significant" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. Accordingly, the leasing company could not be sold a new Greyhound bus for this purpose. Although, from a legal standpoint, you are not prohibited from leasing certain Greyhound buses for school transportation, I would like to emphasize the importance that this agency attaches to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. It remains our position that a school bus meeting the Federal school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. We urge you to consider arranging to have your deaf and blind students transported in complying school buses. The second set of regulations relating to school buses consists of the Highway Safety Program Standards (HSPS). They were issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and apply to state highway safety grant programs. These standards, which are more in the nature of guidelines, have been adopted in varying degrees by the States. One of these standards is HSPS No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. A copy of that standard is enclosed. I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if Kentucky has adopted it. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: nht87-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs Subaru of America P.O. Box 6000 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1987, concerning the Pact 581 Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle equipped with a suspension system whose height is adjustable by the driver is tested at the manufacturer's engine-on and engine-off nominal design height.

On May 6, 1986, I responded to a similar request that you made for an interpretation. My letter (copy enclosed) stated that it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard" damage criteria at any height position to wh ich the suspension can be adjusted.

Your current request for an interpretation does not provide new arguments which indicate that our earlier interpretation was incorrect. Therefore, I must reaffirm that earlier opinion.

As we indicated in the May 6, 1986 letter, we appreciate your concern that the very reason that thy adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is partially negated by requiring bumpers to extend lo w enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. The letter stated, however, that if the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking. See section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

I would also note that in a meeting in March of this year, a member of my staff advised your representatives Chat your company could submit a petition for rulemaking requesting an amendment to Pact 581. The procedures for submitting a petition for rulema king are set forth at 49 CFR Pact 552. If You should submit a petition, the agency would decide whether to grant it in accordance with statutory criteria.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

April 21, 1987 Erika Z. Jones, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subaru of America, Inc. (SOA) requests an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard, with respect to the test conditions applicable to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles that have a suspension system whose height is driver-controllable under certain limited operating conditions.

SOA would like confirmation of its interpretation that, because height of an adjustable suspension system is not specified as one of the conditions in S581.6, compliance with the Bumper Standard is demonstrated at the manufacturer'; engine-on and engine- off nominal design height.

The Subaru air suspension system (fitted only to top-of-the-line, four-wheel-drive vehicles) maintains constant ground clearance regardless of vehicle load by adjusting the volume in each of four air springs in accordance with a signal from a vehicle hei ght sensor installed in each air spring. For driving on poor or snow-covered roads, with four wheel drive engaged, the driver may activate a switch to select a "High" suspension position offering increased ground clearance. This "High" setting is intende d for use only in special circumstances where-extra ground clearance is desirable. Having to meet the Part 581 pendulum requirements at such setting would partially negate the increased clearance intended to be provided, particularly ramp angle. When the ignition is switched to the "off" position, the suspension returns to "normal" for parking to ensure that the bumpers provide proper protection. When the ignition is switched to the "on" position, "High" ground clearance must be reselected, if desired.

SOA has no indications that its present air suspension system vehicles are being operated in the "High" position under conditions other than those intended and recommended by Subaru. (Demographics of the owners of these vehicles show more of them to be m arried, older, better educated and affluent than those of competing vehicles.)

Although the standard does not take into account load variances that can result in changes in bumper height (and therefore the level of protection provided) the Subaru system is load-compensating and therefore offers the same protection at various condit ions of vehicle loading, as well as preserves headlamp aim.

Subaru is currently studying the feasibility of certifying its MPV's as passenger cars. However, testing at the "High" ground clearance position would make it literally impossible for four wheel drive MPV's with variable height air suspension systems to meet passenger car bumper standards, in spite of the 5 mph systems new for the 1987 model year.

Should you need further information about this request, please contact Mr. Alfred Gloddeck in SOA's Washington office, telephone (202) 295-4994.

Sincerely, SUBARU OF AMERICA INC. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs

ID: nht87-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your April 23. 1987 letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Nadra L. Angerman of Wrangell, who is concerned that there is no Federal requirement for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Ms. Angerman 's concerns. As explained below, NHTSA does not require large school buses to have safety belts for passengers because we require those buses to provide an alternate form of passenger crash protect ion. Our safety standards are directed at improving the interior of large school buses so that passengers will be provided adequate crash protection even if safety belts are not used.

I Would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety stan dards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization refers to designing the interior of large buses so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fasten ed a safety belt. The key features include higher hnd stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance.

Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do lar ger buses.

However, because large school buses already offer substantial protection to passengers, we believe a Federal requirement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. Large school buses are very safe vehicles not only because they meet Federal schoo l bus safety standards, but also because of their size and weight, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wi sh to order safety belts on their own large school buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own preferences regarding pupil transportation.

A June 1985 NHTSA publication entitled, Safety Belts in School Buses, discusses many of the issues relating to safety belts in large school buses. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.

I hope you have found this information to be helpful. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Edward Babbitt, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Babbitt:

One of my constituents/ Ms. Nadra L. Angerman of Wrangell( Alaska, has recently informed me of her concern about the need for mandatory seat belt installation laws for school buses nation-wide. I've enclosed a copy of her letter on this subject for your reference.

I would greatly appreciate any information you could provide on recent proposals or assessments relating to possible national requirements to install seatbelts in school buses. Thank you for your assistance in addressing my constituent' s concerns. With best wishes,

TED STEVENS

Enclosure

April 13 1987

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Senator Stevens:

Automobile safety is becoming one of the most common concerns of Americans. Automobiles traveling at excessive speeds, unsafe road conditions, and the risks of drunk drivers almost makes me want to stay off the highways.

With recent bills pertaining to mandatory use of seat belts I can say that use of seat belts is a very good idea for everybody. Senior citizens, adults, teenagers, and small children should all be protected by such devices.

My main concern is that there are no seat belts school buses. School buses serve as a major source of transportation for children ranging from grades K through 12. In event of an accident there is nothing to keep a child in his/her seat. This fact should be looked at more seriously.

Thank you for your time, please keep my concerns with automobile safety and seat belts on school buses a priority in your busy schedule.

Sincerely,

Nadra L. Angerman

ID: nht87-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rudy van Kreuningen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rudy van Kreuningen Kraco Enterprises, Inc. 505 E. Euclid Ave. Compton, CA 90224

Dear Mr. van Kreuningen:

This responds to your letters asking about the effect of Federal law or regulations on an aftermarket steel "shelf" which you have designed for installation in the area above the windshield where the sun visors are located. The shelf would be used to hol d small items such as maps or glasses and would be provided with visors on its underside to replace the vehicle's original visors. I apologize for our delay in replying.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It also authorizes us to require the recall and remedy of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment which contains a safety defect.

The sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mountin g must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or i ts mounting with their heads. If your shelf were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visors attached to it would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard, and the shelf would have to meet the mounting requirements. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your review.

Although you propose to sell your shelf in the aftermarket, not as an item of original equipment, the standard can nonetheless affect persons who install the shelf. The Act provides that a person who manufactures, distributes, sells or repairs motor vehi cles cannot "render inoperative" a regulated device such as a sun visor or its mounting. If a repair shop were to remove a vehicle's sun visor and replace it with your shelf, the shop would be in violation of the Act unless your shelf complied with the s tandard. The sole exception to this rule is the individual owner, who may install a shelf in his own vehicle without regard to the standard.

In addition to the requirements of the standard, our safety effect authority could have a bearing on your sale of the shelf. If the shelf would normally be installed so that its rear edge could be hit by an occupant's head in a crash, it would seem likel y to cause serious injury. It is thus possible that the shelf would be determined to contain a safety defect subject to recall. I urge you to examine the possibility of such injury before you make further plans to market the shelf.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

On March 25, 1986, we sent a letter to you requesting what safety standards apply on an accessory shelf to be used in cars or trucks.

As of this date, we have not received a reply. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Attached is a copy of the letter for your information.

Sincerely,

Rudy van Kreuningen Director of Engineering RVK/df Encl.

March 25, 1986

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington. D.C.

Subject: Accessory Shelf for Truck/Cars

Gentlemen:

Kraco Enterprises is a manufacturer/distributor of automotive aftermarket sound and accessory equipment.

Presently, we are evaluating the feasibility of marketing a "shelf" which is to be installed in the general area where normally visors are located. The shelf is made of steel and is provided with new visors. It is to be used to place small items (cigaret te;, glasses, maps, etc.) within easy reach of the driver or front seat passenger. A sketch of the shelf, including mounting instructions, is attached for your review.

Before pursuing this item further, we would like to receive the following information:

1) Is this type of product presently prohibited?

2) If not, what safety standards apply?

Please supply us with copies of applicable safety standards.

If you desire any additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Rudy van Kreuningen Director of Engineering RVK/df Encl.

ID: nht87-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Gary Harris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Harris Division Quality Control Manager LSI Safelite 801 South Wichita Wichita, KS 67201

Dear Mr. Harris:

This responds to your letter of February 17, 1987, concerning the use of a DOT code number on glazing material by someone other than the prime manufacturer. I regret the delay in our response. You indicate in your letter that a customer has requested tha t you, as the prime manufacturer of the glazing material, include in your trademark on each piece of glazing material the DOT code number issued to you. You refer to the particular glazing material in question as "stock glass", since a customer purchases sheets of glazing material from you and then cuts the glazing into pieces for various unknown applications. You object to this request, because you have no control over the use to which the glazing material will be put. You request our opinion and we of fer the following.

The marking and certification requirements for glazing materials are contained in S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and include different marking requirements for a prime manufacturer and other types of manufacturers . (A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined in S6.1 as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.) The only glazing material which must carry the DOT code mark is that produced by a prime manufacturer and designed as a compon ent of a specific motor vehicle or camper. Since you specifically indicate that you do not know the use to which the glazing material will be put, there is no requirement that this glazing material carry your manufacturer's code.

The purpose of the manufacturer's code is to help the agency identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. The difference in the marking requirements was designed to help the agency distinguish between glazing in a motor vehicle that had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation. In a July 13, 1976, letter to "Luci te" Acrylic Sheet Products, we stated that the certification requirements had become widely understood and uniformly practiced throughout the glazing industry, which has aided the traceability of glazing for enforcement purposes. We went on to say that, for these reasons, we were no longer prohibiting the use of the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of the code number to the d istributor or manufacturer.

In summary, you may include, if you wish, your DOT code number on glazing material not designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, but sold by you to others. There is no obligation to do so, however. If you have further questions please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Room 5219-NCC01 400 Seventh Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Erika:

Lear Siegler Incorporated - Safelite Division is a manufacturer of laminated and tempered safety glazing for use in automotive applications. Safelite manufactures safety glazing for specific locations in motor vehicles as well as laminated products that Safelite's customers will cut into parts for use in motor vehicles at their locations. This particular type of laminated glass, that will be cut by Safelite's customers into various parts for various unknown applications, is called "stock glass Stock gla ss is the subject of this letter.

LSI-Safelite has a customer who is requesting Safelite to include in it's trademark on each piece of stock glass, the Department of Transportations number. Safelite has a strong conviction that Safelite should not put it's Department of Transportation nu mber in the trademark of stock glass.

Safelite's man reason for having this conviction is that Safelite has no control over how it's customers use this glass after the customer(s) cut down into various parts for automotive glazing usage. The customer may very well use the AS-2 glass for a wi ndshield application which, in accordance to the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. is incorrect usage of this particular type of glazing.

This letter is a request for a written interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's legal council of the Motor Vehicle Codes and/or Safety Standards views of using the prime manufacturers of safety glazing materials Department of Transportation code number on glazing that their customers will be cutting into various parts for usage unknown to the prime glazing material manufacturers.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Your timely response to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your assistance.

Respectfully,

Gary Harris Division Quality Control Manager

ID: nht87-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Sally P. Tate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Sally P. Tate Adaptive Driving Service 2818 Ronco Drive San Jose, CA 95132

Dear Ms Tate:

This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1987, with reference to the following problem: an owner of a 1987 Toyota Corolla has multiple sclerosis, and instead of walking must use a powered scooter. The scooter is transported by a lift platf orm mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. However, this lift unit "obstructs direct view of -- the factory installed high rear brake light." You propose to install another stop lamp on the post of the lift "so that it will be in dir ect view of the drivers behind....," leaving untouched the original center highmounted stop lamp. You have informed us that California will not sanction the additional lamp unless this agency authorizes it. Vehicles in use are subject to the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard may not be rendered inoperative, in whole or in part, by a person other than the vehicle owner. Installation of any equipment that obstructs the light output of a highmounted stop lamp would render it partially inoperative in our opinion. Because photometric compliance of the lamp is determined from a distance of not less than 10 feet, and b ecause the distance between the Toyota rear lamp and lift unit would appear to be less than that distance, it is probable that one or more of the requisite photometric test points might be obscured by the device.

However, it appears that the prohibition against rendering inoperative may not be violated by the modification you propose. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment allows an exception for modifica tions made during the manufacturing process or before sale. Under Paragraph S4.3.1.1, if motor vehicle equipment prevents a lamp from compliance with photometric requirements, an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements shall be provided. Wher e a standard provides alternative methods of compliance, alteration of a vehicle or item of equipment so that it meets a different alternative from the one which it originally met does not constitute rendering inoperative within the meaning of the prohib ition.

We believe that your situation is sufficiently similar so that your addition of an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements would not violate the prohibition. In this instance the fact that the new lamp would not be located directed on the rea r vertical centerline of the vehicle, but slightly to the left of it, would not be of great concern to us. In conclusion, we have no objection to the proposed installation of the lamp.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 13, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel F.M.V. #108, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SouthWest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones,

As per my conversations with Mr. Kevin Cabey and Mr. Taylor Vinson, I have been advised to write directly to you to have you assist us with our request.

I will try to be as brief as possible. I work with Physically Disabled individuals and I have been contracted by the State of California to work with a client who has Multiple Sclerosis. She purchased a 1987 Toyota Corolla liftback which obviously has th e high center rear brake light feature. This light in itself poses no problem. However, our client uses a powered scooter since her ability to ambulate is minimized and this scooter can only be transported through the means of a special lift unit mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. (Please refer to the brochure of Tiger Lift enclosed.) When this lift unit is mounted on the car, it abstracts direct view of the factory installed high rear brake light. We have come up with a solution of moun ting another high rear brake light" on the post of the lift so that it will be in direct view of the drivers behind our client. Our State Chief of Automotive Inspection insists that this rear brake light be visible.

Our snag hinges on the fact that the California State Department of Automotive Inspection will not sanction any location of the high rear brake light (only factory installed), in our case on the post of the lift, unless we receive a letter of authorizati on directly from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We are therefore requesting and greatly appreciate your efforts in assisting us with this client's need. Our automotive chief has stated that this unit will not be installed unless we are able to receive a written letter of authorization addressing the a cceptance of the installation of another high rear brake light, which can be mounted on the post of this lift unit. The factory installed unit will remain untouched.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this unusual request.

ID: 86-5.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Edward T. Fennell, Jr. -- Amilite Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/31/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Terry E. Quinn (Std. 205); 9/18/87 letter from Terry Quinn to NHTSA (occ 1128)

TEXT:

Mr. Edward T. Fennell, Jr. Amilite Corporation 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530

Dear Mr. Fennell:

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1986, concerning the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You explained that your company represents several glazing manufacturers that make windshields. You said that your company sometimes receives orders from other companies asking to have a windshield made for them with their own corporate logo marked on the windshield. You asked if a company can, with the permission of the other company, mark a windshield with the other company's logo and its own DOT identification number. As discussed below, such a practice is permissible.

Section 6 of Standard No. 205 sets forth the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. Section 6.1 requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material in accordance with the section 6 of American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.la, July 3, 1980 (ANS Z-26). One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." In addition to those requirements, S6.2 of Standard No. 276 requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer code mark assigned by this agency. The standard defines a prime glazing manufacturer as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material."

One reason for the marking requirements of Standard No. 205 is to aid the agency in identifying the actual manufacturer of the glazing for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Since, in the situation you described, the prime glazing manufacturer will be placing its own DOT code mark on the glazing, the agency's ability to identify easily and accurately the manufacturer of the glazing will not be impaired. Therefore, we would not consider the use of another manufacturer's logo on the glazing to be a violation of the standard as long as the prime glazing manufacturer has marked the glazing with its own DOT code mark.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 30, 1986 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to seek a ruling for the logo on windshields. We represent several factories, and at times we receive orders from other factories to have windshields made for them with their own corporate logo. We realize the fabricating factory must have only its own D.O.T. number in this logo.

Please confirm it is acceptable by your agency to use any logo (as long as permission is granted) with the Manufacturing Factories' Registered D.O.T. number.

I have attached a copy of a Letter of Permission to use a corporate logo on purchased products for your review. Should have any questions, please feel free to call on our toll free number (800) 645-6240. A prompt reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely, AmiLite Corporation

Edward T. Fennell, Jr.

ETF:lam Encs.

Mr. Carmen Mazzocki Amilite Corp.

666 Old Country Road Garden City, New York 11530

Dear Carmen:

Attached is the facsimile of the LOF logos for clear, tinted, and tinted shade windshields. Please note that the letters at the bottom are to be ignored and that ORAN will use their D.O.T. No. (268) and "M" numbers when manufacturing the U.S. domestic truck 1/2-windshields for LOF. For the current order they will only need the tinted (E-Z-EYE) safety float monogram. The position of the logo should be the same position as the OEM manufacturer's logo.

This letter will serve as permission for ORAN PALMACH ZOVA< kibbutz zova 90870, israel to produce our p.o. 2053-6004, and 2053-6002 totaling 3,000 lites using the lof logo oran d.o.t. number. also attached is a copy of letter from indicating us that this practice in accordance with section 6 safety standard 205, glazing materials which incorporates by reference american national "safety code for motor vehicles operating on land highways", z26.6-1966 (ans z26).

If you have any questions, advise.

Richard P. Keim Manager - Inventory Control RK/fb

Attach.