ID: 1985-03.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable John G. Rowland -- House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Janet Tatro of Shelton, Connecticut, concerning our regulations for school bus lighting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We regret the delay in our response. Your constituent was concerned that certain vans in Connecticut that are marked as carrying school children are not equipped with flashing school bus lights. Ms. Tatro suggested that such vans should be required to be equipped with the warning lights of school buses, so that motorist would be required under Connecticut law to stop their vehicles upon activation of the flashing lights. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your questions and those of your constituent. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school bus lighting, but are applied in different ways. The first regulations, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, are the safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, sellers of new school buses must comply with all applicable Vehicle Safety Act regulations if they wish to sell their vehicles in this country. the second regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provide guidelines to the States for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards provides recommended procedures for the operation of school vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (including the driver) and sold for transporting students to and from school or related events is considered a "school bus." Since new vans that carry 11 or more persons are considered school buses if intended for school purposes, our school bus safety standards apply to those vehicles as well as to larger school buses. Under Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, all school buses must be equipped with flashing school bus warning lamps. If Ms. Tatro knows of instances in which noncomplying school buses may have been sold, she should notify NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Room 6113, at the address given above. New vans that carry fewer than 11 persons are considered to be "multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPV's)" under our regulations. Those vehicles may be used to carry school children, and must be certified as meeting the safety standards for MPV's. MPV's may also be voluntarily manufactured to meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's. Since we do not regulate the use of warning lamps on MPV's, Connecticut may choose to require school bus warning lamps on its smaller vans as long as the supplemental lighting does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required for MPV's. I wish to emphasize that the motor vehicle safety standards apply only to the manufacture and sale of school buses, not to their operation. State law determines the operational requirements that vehicles must meet. Under the Highway Safety Act, we issued Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), which contains recommendations for the identification, operation, and maintenance of school vehicles. Under this guideline, States are expressly given the discretion to decide whether to require warning lamps on smaller school vehicles (e.g., MPVs) and whether to require that the lights on a school bus or an MPV be flashed when loading or unloading students. While our motor vehicle safety standards require a new school bus to be equipped with school bus warning lights, we cannot specify the circumstances in which the lights must be used. You asked how many States require that their buses flash their signal lamps when loading or unloading students. At this time, we are aware of 44 States that have such a requirement. Connecticut requires the actuation of signals at least 50 feet in advance of the place where children will be received or discharged. Connecticut State officials would be able to provide Ms. Tatro with additional information about the State's requirement for the use of school bus warning lamps. You also asked whether there have been any studies on the safety of school vans. In the mid-1970's, when NHTSA developed a new set of school bus safety standards, the agency evaluated the performance characteristics of van-type vehicles to determine the necessary requirements that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Since a van experiences different crash forces than a larger bus and differs substantially in design, our safety standards were developed to specify particular requirements for vans appropriate for the smaller type of vehicle. While the term "van" is frequently used, this agency classifies all vans as either "buses" or "MPVS," depending on their passenger capacity. Vans that carry 11 or more persons (driver included) are considered buses. Based on our assessment of the crashworthiness of those vehicles, the agency determined that school buses weighing 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with safety belts for all occupant seating positions. School buses weighing more than 10,000 pounds must comply with comprehensive seating system requirements which provide equivalent high levels of passenger protection. If a van carries fewer than 11 persons, it is classified as an MPV and must be equipped with safety belts for all passengers, whether or not the vehicle is used for school purposes. I hope this information is helpful. While school buses have excellent safety records, NHTSA is committed to continuing its efforts to reduce school bus-related deaths and injuries on our nation's highways as much as possible. We appreciate the cooperation and input of concerned citizens like Ms. Tatro. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures: Constituent's correspondence, HSPS 17

ID: nht93-5.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: K. Aubrey Hottell -- Smith and Robson, Inc

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/7/93 from K. Aubrey Hottell to John Womack (OCC-8760) and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1993, requesting information on "air bag replacement, air bag indicator light functioning, and any requirements or recommendations for indicator lights to be functional upon resale of a vehicle."

With regard to air bag replacement, I am enclosing a letter, dated January 19, 1990, to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. As explained in this letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment.

With regard to air bag indicator lights, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty to replace equipment damaged in a crash. Hence, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag indicator that is inoperable because of damage in a crash. However, the named commercial entities are prohibited from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" a functional indicator. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

As noted in the Conrad letter enclosed, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. This recommendation would also include repair or replacement of a non-functioning indicator light.

I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the

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

ID: nht89-2.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 2, 1989

FROM: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- PRESIDENT, EXECULINE

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO FREDERICK H. DAMBACH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 217) TEXT:

I appreciate your response to my letter dated July 10, 1989.

I must, in all respect, disagree with your decision. I must also ask you to reconsider, based on the following;

Your reply stated that my letter "indicated that if the roof mounted exits were counted as side exits, your buses would be in compliance with Standard 217." You go on to explain, and I quote from your reference to Standard 217, "At least 40 percent of t he total area required must be on the left side of the bus, and at least another 40 percent must be on the right side."

You go on to explain that a roof exit may not be counted because such an exit is not located on the side. Then you give an explanation of the term "side" as being that part of the bus which is perpendicular to the floor.

Well, you totally missed the boat on this one. You are reading words into my letter and into Standard 217 which are not written and do not exist.

In my letter, I never asked that a roof exit be considered a side exit as you stated in your letter. Nor does 217 require a roof exit to be considered a side exit for our buses to meet this spec.

Standard 217 simply and clearly states: "At least 40 percent of the total required unobstructed openings, computed in the above manner, shall be provided on each side of a bus".

Nowhere in 217 does it say "left or right side" as you stated in your letter! Nowhere in 217, or in title 393, does it even hint that the term "side" would mean "that part of a bus which is perpendicular to the floor". That is the definition for a "sid e wall", not each side of a bus.

If 217 actually stated, "left or right side wall" or "the side wall", your definition could then be correct, but 217 does not say, "left or right side wall" or "the side wall," it specifically states each side of a bus!

Again, you have read things into this spec. which are not there. This is what N.J. DOT did in reference to the push out windows, insisting that 217 specifically required push out windows, which it does not. I went around with them for five weeks, finall y calling the Governors Office before they correctly read the spec.

It is because of them that I am writing you concerning this situation, and now you are doing the same thing they did!

When Standard 217 says: "at least 40 percent of the total area of unobstructed openings shall be provided on each side of a bus, it is saying on each side of the center line of a bus, not on a "side wall".

To support this, I refer you to other sections of Title 393, of which Standard 217 is a small part.

They read as follows:

393.12 Lamps and reflectors, large buses and trucks.

b." On the rear, two tail lamps, one at each side; two stop lamps, one at each side; two turn signals, one at each side; two clearance lamps, one at each side; two reflectors, one at each side; three identification lamps, mounted on the vertical center line of the vehicle".

This section then refers the reader to a diagram to illustrate 393.12.(enclosed). The diagram shows each item in the above paragraph to be located left or right of the center line of a bus when they make reference to each side, not on the left "side wal l" or the right "side wall" as would be needed to support your definition of the term "side".

393.70 Coupling devices and towing methods, except for driveaway-towaway operations, says:

a. Tracking. "the path of a towed vehicle will not deviate more than three inches to either side of the path of the vehicle that tows it".

Using your definition of "side", an 8 foot wide bus being towed could deviate over 8 foot into on coming traffic before it was three inches to either side of the path of the vehicle that tows it. Again, they are talking about either side of the center l ine of a vehicle, not "side" as you described.

Paragraph (8) under the same section says, "the points of attachment on the towing vehicle shall be located equally distant from, and on opposite sides of, the center line of the towing vehicle".

This again supports the fact that each side of a bus, is each side of the center line, not the "side wall" as you have indicated.

393.78 Windshield wipers. (a): says, "Every bus, truck, and truck tractor, having a windshield, shall be equipped with at least two automatically-operating windshield wiper blades, one on each side of the center-line of the windshield". Again, supportin g the definition of "each side of a bus" being each side of the center line of a bus!

I could go on making other references to Title 393, but that would be

redundant. I've given you sufficient examples to support our position.

Please read the specifications without inserting your own words. Please read my letter without inserting your own words. I am then confident that you will agree with me.

As I've stated before, this fiasco has cost me thousands of dollars. We are a small company. We will never be able to recuperate the revenue already lost due to this situation, nor can we afford to lose anymore! Please work on this problem today! I nee d immediate relief!

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ID: 08-004730 marzolf march 20

ID: nht81-2.13

DATE: 04/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meadowood Management Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 5, 1981, in which you seek help in defining the terms "van," "motor home," "recreational vehicle," and "motor coach."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Our regulations do not specifically define the terms you use in your letter. Rather, the agency's regulations establish generic categories such as "passenger car," "truck," "trailer," "bus," and "multipurpose passenger vehicle." These terms are defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 (copy enclosed). A particular vehicle may fall into one or another category depending upon its design and use. For example, a "van" may be either a "bus," "multipurpose passenger vehicle," or a "truck," depending upon the number of designated seating positions and the use of the vehicle.

The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, P.O. Box 204, 14650 Lee Road, Chantilly, Virginia 22021, or The Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096, may be able to provide you with specific definitions.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely

ATTACH.

FEBRUARY 5, 1981

Motor Highway Traffic Safety Administrator Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Our Community Association, like many others, has restrictions that apply to different types of vehicles. The problem common to all such Associations is how to distinguish the types of vehicles. The confusion arises out of contradictions of definitions as between manufacturers certifications and license bureaus, and even between license bureaus. The problem is the hybrid types of vehicles now being marketed.

We will appreciate any assistance you can give us in defining the following types of vehicles:

A. Vans B. Motor Homes

C. Recreational Vehicles

D. Motor Coaches

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Roger F. Dunn -- Manager, MEADOWBROOK MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.

ID: 1770y

The Honorable James L. Oberstar
U.S. House of Representatives
District Office
231 Federal Building
Duluth, MN 55802

Dear Mr. Oberstar:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of Mr. Joseph Mikoll regarding occupant protection devices for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. You indicated that you had read my November 3, 1988 letter to Mr. Mikoll. In that letter, I explained that Mr. Mikoll's "safety bar" devices could not be installed in small school buses in place of safety belts at every seating position, but that "safety bars" could be installed in addition to the required safety belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your two additional questions on this subject.

Question 1: Is there a procedure that [Mr. Mikoll's company] could follow to request a waiver of the provisions of Standard No. 222 which would allow its safety bar devices to be the sole passive restraint on small buses?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains only one provision that would allow this agency to exempt vehicles from compliance with Standard No. 222 or any other applicable Federal motor vehicle Federal safety standard. Under the conditions specified in section 123 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410), a motor vehicle manufacturer could file a petition asking this agency to temporarily exempt a group of motor vehicles from compliance with a safety standard or standards. Thus, a school bus manufacturer that wishes to install "safety bars" in some of its buses in lieu of the safety belts required by Standard No. 222 could seek a temporary exemption from Standard No. 222 for some of its buses.

It is my understanding that, while Mr. Mikoll's company manufactures the "safety bars" and other motor vehicle equipment, it does not manufacture any motor vehicles. If this understanding is correct, Mr. Mikoll's company is not eligible to file for a temporary exemption.

Question 2: Are DOT funds available to firms such as [Mr. Mikoll's company] to do rigorous testing and R&D on passive restraint systems?

This agency generally does not provide research and development support for unsolicited proposals, although we may solicit research proposals and award such contracts on a competitive basis. In addition, the Department has a Small Business Innovation Research Program that Mr. Mikoll may wish to learn more about. I have enclosed a guide on submitting proposals. This program is administered by the Transportation Systems Center, Kendall Square, MA 02142. Dr. George Kovatch is the Program Coordinator. However, Mr. Mikoll should be aware that funds for unsolicited proposals and small business development are extremely limited right now.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:VSA#571 d:4/5/89

ID: 1982-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, permits the use of Items 4 and 5 rigid plastics in rear windows on fire trucks. You were confused because the "ANS Z26" standard permits rigid plastics in these locations, yet Standard 205 is silent on the issue.

The fact that Standard No. 205 does not specifically state that Items 4 and 5 rigid plastics may be used in rear windows in trucks does not mean that such use is not permitted. The "ANS Z26" standard is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205 (paragraph S5.1.1). Therefore, glazing materials that conform with "ANS Z26" may be used in the locations specified in that standard. In addition to the requirements and specified locations in "ANS Z26," Standard 205 includes other locations and requirements for additional types of glazing, as well as other locations for the Items of glazing that are specified in "ANS Z26."

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 18, 1981

U. S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Attn: Hugh Oates, Office of Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Oates:

Subject: FMVSS205 - Glazing Materials

In reviewing this standard, particularly the requirement and usage of rigid plastic, I noticed that the standard omits one usage of rigid plastics that ANS Z26.1 allows. That usage under Item #4 and Item #5 refers to, "Glazing to the rear of the driver in trucks or truck tractor cabs where other means of affording visibility of the highway to the side and rear of the vehicle are provided."

We have a request from a customer to provide a rigid plastic in a fire truck cab in all windows except the windshield and door windows immediately to the right and left of the driver. See attached sheet. windows are in the canopy area of the cab where two jump seats are provided for additional firemen.

As the standard doesn't specifically address this cab arrangement and rigid plastics would reduce the safety hazards and maintenance cost resulting from deliberate breakage of the windows, since plastic glazing is more difficult to break than regular glass, I would appreciate a response to the question of meeting the standard requirements if a rigid plastic glazing was used in positions indicated on attached sheet.

Very truly yours, FWD CORPORATION; Leon W. Steenbock -- Project Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1983-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited -- Moni Marcus, Chief Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Flyer Industries Limited

TEXT:

Moni Marcus, P.Eng. Chief Engineer Flyer Industries Limited 64 Hoka Street Box 245 Transcona P.O. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R2C 3T4

Dear Mr. Marcus:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S 571.217). You stated that your company's transit bus models use eight large windows as emergency exits to satisfy the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217, and that the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency doors. Accordingly, you stated that the entrance and exit doors do not "have to be tested for Standard No. 217 requirements." This is not wholly correct.

Standard No. 217 sets forth two basic requirements. These are (1) window retention requirements, which must be met by all windows in a new bus, except for the windshield, and (2) requirements applicable to emergency exits. As I pointed out in a letter to Mr. Moss, of your staff, the window retention requirements apply to all front door glazing which exceeds 8 inches in diameter, and this agency does test such glazing for compliance with the standard. Hence, while you may be correct in asserting that a door not designated as an emergency door would not be tested for compliance with the emergency exit requirements, you are incorrect if you are asserting that the glazing on such a door would not be tested for compliance with the window retention requirements.

Your letter went on to state that, although your entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency exits, most local transit authorities have requested you to add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. You then stated your opinion that the addition of these decals would not change the status of the doors to emergency exits, so the doors would not be required to meet the Standard No. 217 push force requirements applicable to emergency doors. This conclusion is incorrect.

Standard No. 217 specifies minimum criteria for emergency exits which must be met by all new buses, and your letter states that your transit bus models do not need to count the entrance and exit doors on the buses to satisfy these criteria. Thus, absent other factors, those doors would not be required to comply with the portions of the standard applicable to emergency doors. However, affixing a decal, such as the one enclosed with your letter, in the area of those doors is labeling the door as an emergency exit. It is reasonable for riders of the bus to assume that a door which is labeled by the manufacturer with instructions in case of an emergency and which is intended by the local transit authority to be used as an exit in case of an emergency is in fact a door which can be used as an emergency exit. Given the likelihood of the use of the door as an emergency exit when it is so labeled, it is important that the door comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, and this agency has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in case of an emergency.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a letter reaching this same conclusion which was sent to another manufacturer. Contrary to the understanding expressed in your letter, this agency has never sent a letter to a manufacturer stating that doors labeled with emergency instructions were not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 217 applicable to emergency doors.

Should you need any further information or have further questions on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 12, 1983

Dear Mr. Krazke:

Re: Clarification of FMVSS - 217

As per our discussion on the phone, Flyer's transit bus models 900, 901 and 902 are equipped with 8 large windows and 3 fixed ones. The eight large windows are classified as emergency exits and they satisfy the FMVSS - 217 requirement of:

51 seats x 67 = 3,417 square inches (minimum) Therefore, the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency exits and do not have to be tested for FMVSS - 217 requirements.

Both emergency exit windows and fixed windows were tested in 1980, and approved by your department - see Report No. 217-OYS (copy attached).

The question remaining is that most transit authorities have been requesting that bus manufacturers add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. (Copy of decal drawings attached). In our view, the decals do not change the status of the doors to an emergency door status and, therefore, they are still not required to meet FMVSS - 217 push forces.

My understanding is that this interpretation has been given to other bus manufacturers before and we at Flyer would like to have a similar clarification from your office to straighten the records out specifically in regard to the letter marked NOA-30 and sent to Mr. Bill Moss, Flyer's test engineer by Mr. Frank Berndt (copy attached).

Your assistance on the phone was greatly appreciated and I hope to hear from you soon.

Yours truly,

Moni Marcus, P.Eng. Chief Engineer FLYER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Enclosure (4//5/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Flyer Industries Limited Omitted here.)

ID: ES05-007900drn

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
2903 Boulevard, Suite 8
Colonial Beach, VA 23834




Dear Congressman Forbes:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Chris Thompson of Richmond, who asks about our school bus regulations.

Mr. Thompson is the director of administrative support services for Jackson-Feild Homes (Jackson-Feild), a residential group home. Jackson-Feild is preparing to purchase a 12-passenger van. The motor vehicle dealership asks that Mr. Thompson provide a statement that Jackson-Feild is "purchasing this vehicle in compliance with Federal Regulations".

Mr. Thompson describes his facility as follows:

Jackson-Feild Homes is a residential group home for abused adolescent females ages 11 to 17 and their babies. Many of our residents exhibit behavioral problems because of previous abuse and neglect. Jackson-Feild Homes operates 4 cottages (units). The units are designed to assist the girls with management of their behaviors through a well established behavioral management program which utilizes a points and level system in order to set limits and maintain structure. The girls also receive therapy services on site. The girls live on campus, eat in our cafeteria, and go to Gwaltney School which is located on our campus. Our girls walk to school from their dormitories. We do not transport day students to the school. In order to attend our school, the child must live on campus. Gwaltney School is a fully accredited private school licensed by the [Virginia] Department of Education.

We currently operate Windstar type vans (7 passenger), a Ford Taurus (5 passenger) and several 12 and 15 passenger Ford Vans. We use these vehicles to transport residents to doctors appointments, the movies, skating, etc. Each living unit is assigned a vehicle. Each living unit houses between 10 and 14 residents. We also

have transportation staff which assist the unit staff in transporting residents. Our school also takes an occasional field trip and we use the previously stated vehicles to transport our residents to the field trips. The school conducts an average of 4 field trips a year. These field trips are the only trips associated with the school. All other transports are related to unit (dormitory) activities.

Discussion

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling a new vehicle to sell a vehicle that meets all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, persons selling a new "school bus" must sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applying to school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed to carry 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events.

Over the years, we have been asked to interpret how our school bus regulations apply to vehicles sold to residential treatment facilities (see a July 15, 1999, letter to Ms. Sharon Elsenbeck and an April 8, 1998, letter to Mr. Gary Hammontree, copies enclosed). However, unlike the Jackson-Feild Homes, these facilities did not have a school as part of their facility.

Federal law has been revised since the letters to Mr. Hammontree and Ms. Elsenbeck. On August 10, 2005, P.L. 109-59, the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users" (SAFETEA-LU) was enacted. Section 10309 states in part:

a school or school system may not purchase or lease a new 15-passenger van if it will be used significantly by, or on behalf of, the school or school system to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school, unless the 15-passenger van complies with the motor vehicle standards prescribed for school buses and multifunction school activity buses under this title.

For purposes of Section 10309, 15-passenger van is defined as:"a vehicle that seats 10 to 14 passengers, not including the driver". The civil penalty for a violation of Section 10309 is $10,000, with a maximum penalty of $15,000,000 for a related series of violations.

The relationship between Jackson-Feild and Gwaltney school is unclear to us. We cannot determine, based on Mr. Thompsons information in his letter, that Jackson-Feild is a separate entity from the Gwaltney School. Because of this possible exposure to the new statutory civil penalty provision for purchases of new "15-passenger vans" (which, by definition, includes purchases of 12-passenger vans), we recommend that Mr. Thompson consult a private attorney about the implications associated with Jackson-Feilds purchase of a van that did not meet the school bus safety standards if the facility were subsequently deemed to be a "school".

Before Mr. Thompson makes a decision about buying a vehicle, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. We therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSAs school bus safety standards. NHTSA created a vehicle type, the multi-function school activity bus (MFSAB), for situations similar to that of Mr. Thompson. A MFSAB is a bus that is certified as meeting the school bus standards and therefore provides a comparable level of crash-worthiness safety as does a school bus. The main difference between MFSABs and school buses is that MFSABs do not have traffic control features such as the school bus stop arm and the rear flashing lamps.

We note also that State law determines the requirements that apply to the use of school vehicles. Thus, whether Jackson-Feild can use vans to transport the children is determined by Virginia law. For information on Virginias requirements, Mr. Thompson may contact Virginias State Director of Pupil Transportation:

June Eanes
Associate Director, Pupil Transportation
Virginia Department of Education
P.O. Box 2120
Richmond, VA 23218-2120
Phone: 804-225-2037
e-mail:jeanes@mail.vak12ed.edu

If you have any further questions about NHTSAs programs please feel free to have your staff contact Dorothy Nakama, Attorney-Advisor, or me at this address, or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
cc: Washington Office
ref:VSA#571.3
d.11/4/05

ID: 8302

Mr. Robert A. Ernst
Research Coordinator
I-Car Tech Center
4 Systems Drive, Suite C
Appleton, WI 54914

Dear Mr. Ernst:

This responds to your February 4, 1993, letter concerning possible legal obligations to repair an air bag system following a collision. You stated that your organization produces technical training for the automotive collision repair industry and has received a number of inquiries concerning this issue. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where two questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

1. Are there Federal regulations which specifically direct the collision repair facility to restore the supplemental restraint system to an operable condition following a deployment on vehicles the facility repairs?

4. Can the vehicle be sold if the owner knows that the supplemental restraint is inoperable because of a previous deployment?

I am enclosing a copy of a January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad which addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. As explained in that letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

2. If repairs are deliberately made to mask the fact that the air bag system is inoperative, has the repair facility violated any applicable laws?

Section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty on a repair business to replace an air bag that was damaged in a crash. However, this section would prohibit the repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the readiness indicator. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

3. If the owner of the vehicle requests that the supplemental restraint not be restored to operational condition, is the owner of the repair facility or the vehicle liable for later injuries?

Liability risk is a question of state law, not of Federal law. Therefore, a repair business should consult an attorney in its state about this question.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#208 d:3/4/93