ID: nht94-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 16, 1994

FROM: Darlene E. Skelton, President, National Institute Of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.

TO: Barry Felrice -- Asst. Administrator-NHTSA Office of Rulemaking

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO DARLENE SKELTON (A43; STD. 120; STD. 121; PART 567)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Felrice:

The National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety is a nonprofit organization committed to improving safety in the purchase, application, operation, and maintenance of emergency vehicles. Over the course of our work, several items have come to question .

1. We have examined vehicles that the GVW exceeds the tire rating capacity. In such cases the manufacturer places a limitation on the distance and speed the vehicle can travel.

For example, a fire truck with four rear mounted tires rated 7,000 lbs. each or a total of 28,000 lbs. are mounted on a 31,000 lb. axle. The final stage manufacturer actually acquired a letter from the tire manufacturer a. raising the air pressure from 100 to 110 or 115 psi b. placing a limit of driving no more than 55mph for a distance no greater than than seven (7) miles.

Our question is, do these practices constitute a violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)?

2. We have also examined vehicles where the axle has been re-rated.

For example, one manufacturer increased the axle rating because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Because there is less cycling over the highway, they decided that the same axle in a fire truck application could be increased fr om 22,000 lbs. to 24,000 lbs.

Does this re-cycling of axles constitute a violation of the FMVSS?

3. We have knowledge of some manufacturers taking air supply for horns off of the air supply for breaks.

Does this violate the FMVSS?

Any direction you can provide regarding these issues is greatly appreciated.

ID: BlueBird2point.drn

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P. O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, and the "make inoperative" provision of our statute. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that Blue Bird is investigating the feasibility, legality and practicability of equipping school bus passenger seats with Type 2 seat belt assemblies (lap and shoulder belt systems). You ask three questions about how our requirements may affect this endeavor.

Some background concerning school buses might be helpful in addressing your questions. In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued Standard No. 222, which provides for school bus passenger crash protection through the "compartmentalization" concept. Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. The seats must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet be flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant. They must be constructed by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger. On large school buses (gross vehicle weight greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds)), compartmentalization provides effective occupant crash protection without the use of seat belts.

In the absence of a specific design proposal, we cannot offer an opinion as to whether a lap and shoulder belt system can be attached to existing school bus seats without reducing the benefits of compartmentalization during a crash. We also have limited information about how an integrated lap and shoulder belt system on a school bus seat would perform in a crash or otherwise affect the current safety of school buses. I have enclosed a copy of our October 28, 1999, letter to Mr. Gilbert A. Perea, which contains a more detailed discussion of our concerns about attaching a shoulder belt to a school bus seat back.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also has begun an extensive research program to study occupant protection systems for school bus passengers. One objective of the plan is to improve current school bus crash data to better define the types of crashes that produce injuries to occupants in order to evaluate the effectiveness of current Federal crash protection requirements.

The research plan also will evaluate new school bus occupant crash protection systems in controlled laboratory tests that represent real-world crashes. Based on those tests, NHTSA may propose new occupant protection requirements for school buses if overall safety can be improved.

Turning now to your questions, you first ask:

Question One: "As a manufacturer of school buses, is Blue Bird prohibited from installing Type 2 seat belts on the passenger seats in buses manufactured and sold as school buses based on the [make inoperative] provision cited above?"

You refer to 30122 of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), which prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from making modifications that "make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on a new or used vehicle would be subject to penalties of up to $1,100 per violation and injunctive relief.

In answer to your question, 30122 would prohibit Blue Bird from installing Type 2 belts if such a modification would cause a seating system already in compliance with Standard No. 222, or any other applicable FMVSS, to no longer comply. Note that 30122 only applies to a vehicle that has been previously certified as in compliance with the FMVSS, and that 30115 prohibits you as a manufacturer from certifying vehicles that do not comply with all applicable FMVSS. Similarly, 30112 prohibits the sale of noncomplying buses.

Neither Standard No. 222 nor our statute directly prohibits the installation of Type 2 belts for passengers in large school buses. If you can install these belts and preserve the school bus' compliance with all applicable FMVSSs, you may do so. As previously explained, however, we are concerned that the incorporation of shoulder belts into existing school bus seats could reduce crash protection.

Question Two: "Does the [make inoperative] provision prohibit the after-market installation of Type 2 seat belts and/or restraining bars or other devices attached to school bus seat backs and does the agency intend to actively enforce this provision?"

As stated above, the make inoperative provision does not prohibit the installation of belts or restraining bars per se, as long as the modified school bus can meet all applicable Federal safety standards. We do not believe, however, that Type 2 seat belts or restraining bars are generally compatible with existing school bus seats. We are currently investigating these and other occupant protection issues in our school bus safety research program. With respect to enforcement, we intend to actively pursue any violations of law that adversely affect the safety of children on school buses.

Question Three: "Would federal law preempt a state from requiring Type 2 seat belt assemblies on the passenger seats of new school buses they purchase."

Section 30103(b) of our statute states that when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, that section provides that a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for vehicles or equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the Federal standard.

States would be preempted from requiring Type 2 belts on large school buses procured for the State's own use if the belts would cause the bus to not meet Federal school bus standards and thereby result in a lower level of safety performance than that required by the standards. Therefore, if installing Type 2 belts would either make a new school bus not able to meet Standard No. 222 or would "make inoperative" the compliance of a previously certified school bus with Standard No. 222, the State requirement would be preempted.⁽¹⁾

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:222
d.7/12/00

1. We note that this letter does not affect our interpretation letter of February 20, 1987, to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin of the New York State Department of Transportation. In that letter, we stated that NHTSA's laws do not preempt a New York state law that requires passenger belts on N.Y. public school buses. In the context of the Chauvin letter, we were discussing lap belts only, and not Type 2 belts. The lap belts did not prevent school buses from meeting Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: 10913

Ms. Bonnie Ward
Eagle County School District RE 50J
P.O. Box 740
Eagle, CO 81631

Dear Ms. Ward:

This responds to your May 2, 1995, letter following up on information provided you by Charles Hott and Leon DeLarm of this agency, concerning the safety of school buses and "over-the-road type coaches" (e.g., Greyhound-type buses). You ask for confirmation that our safety standards for school buses "are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches."

That statement is correct. Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vehicles according to vehicle type. We have FMVSSs that apply to "buses," and those that apply to "school buses." Since a "school bus" is a type of "bus" under our regulations, a new school bus must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to "school buses" in addition to those that apply to "buses." A new over-the-road coach would have to meet our "bus" standards, but not our "school bus" standards.

We would like to emphasize the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. A school bus meeting the school bus 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 some over-the-road coaches, but it has safety features that the coaches 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 making school transportation decisions.

For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet that gives a brief description of the FMVSSs, and an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of our standards.

If you other questions on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:8/2/95

ID: Alani.1

Mr. Y. Alani
Deputy General Manager
Autoluxe Tires (Israel) Ltd.
25 Hamelacha Street, Park Afeq
Rosh Haayin 48091
Israel

Dear Mr. Alani:

This is in response to your letter and subsequent e-mail to Eric Stas in which you requested clarification as to the proper application of speed rating codes for replacement tires. Specifically, your letter asked whether it would be permissible to replace original equipment tires with an "H" speed rating with replacement tires with a "T" speed rating, whether it would be permissible to place "H"-rated tires on the front axle and "T"-rated tires on the rear axle of a vehicle, and whether a damaged "H"-rated tires would retain that designation after being repaired. For the reasons discussed below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot advise you as to the proper application of these codes.

Speed ratings are not required under our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). It is our understanding that the tire speed rating system was established by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), so you may wish to consult with that organization about the proper application of such codes (see http://www.etrto.org/pub_gb.html for contact information.)

We assume that you wrote to us because some tires sold in the U.S. are labeled with speed rating codes. By way of explanation, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., tires) introduced into the U.S. market. NHTSA does not issue approvals of these products, but instead, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must self-certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards, prior to offering such products for sale in the United States. Under our FMVSSs related to tires, manufacturers are not required to label tires with speed ratings. However, tire manufacturers are permitted to label additional information on the sidewall of tires, including speed rating codes, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

If you have further questions, you may contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:109 d.6/21/05

ID: 09-008772 Godsey

ID: 09-008772 VSA

ID: 19090.ztv

Ken Silverman, Manager of Marketing
Portable Products Division
Ingersoll-Rand Company
501 Sanford Avenue
P. O. Box 868
Mocksville, NC 27028

Dear Mr. Silverman:

We regret the delay in responding to your letter concerning the portable air compressors that your company manufactures. According to your letter, some of these units are trailered behind vehicles. You asked our interpretation as to whether the compressors are trailers as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 and, if so, which lighting requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, are applicable.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

Your letter enclosed pictures and a written description of the air compressors that indicated that the compressors are used for a variety of purposes and in a variety of locations. For example, they can be used at construction sites, agricultural locations, nuclear power plants, fairs and carnivals, movie sets, and the like.

Whether the agency considers your units to be motor vehicles depends on their intended use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

We do not have sufficient information about the use of your various air compressors to determine whether or not they are motor vehicles. I note, by way of guidance, that we concluded that mobile waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment was not a motor vehicle, based on the fact that it appeared to stay on job sites for extended periods of time ranging from a week to over a year.

If, however, your portable air compressors are used frequently on the highways, they would be considered motor vehicles and would be required to comply with all applicable FMVSSs, including Standard No. 108. For purposes of explaining how the standard would apply to your units, the following discussion assumes that they would be considered motor vehicles.

It appears from the pictures you sent us that the compressor is a trailer of less than 80 inches in overall width. The lighting requirements for a trailer of this size are set forth in Tables III and IV of Standard No. 108, copies of which I enclose. Table III lists the equipment required for trailers and the applicable SAE materials, and Table IV, the location of this equipment. The requirements of Table III are modified by certain exceptions in S5.1.1 and those of Table IV, by exceptions in S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108.

If the combination lamp on the rear of your trailer incorporates a turn signal function as well as tail and stop functions, the trailer appears to be equipped with the number and types of lamps and reflectors required by Table III of Standard No. 108. The location of this equipment also appears to accord with the requirements of Table IV. You still must determine, or assure yourself, that these devices meet the performance requirements of the standard before certifying that the trailer conforms to all applicable FMVSS. If, as we believe most likely, you are buying lighting equipment for the trailer in the aftermarket, the manufacturer of the equipment should already have certified its conformance with Standard No. 108, either by placing a DOT symbol on the item, or a certification on the container in which it is sold. This is your best assurance of compliance. If the lighting equipment is being manufactured to your specifications and is not being sold in the aftermarket, please call Taylor Vinson of this Office, who will explain to you manufacturer-supplier responsibilities in this situation.

We are also enclosing for your information a fact sheet listing the FMVSSs and other regulations applicable to trailers.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Mr. Vinson as well (phone:202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.2/9/99

ID: nht90-3.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: W.C. Glasscock -- Sun-Cool, & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 from P.J. Rice to W.C. Glasscock (A36; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Thank you for your attention to this letter as I am sure you recieve many with the position you hold.

My name is: William Charles Glasscock, operator of a small business located in Spfld. Il. known as Sun-Cool, & Co. which sells, services and installs solar film by Madico; on commercial, residence and last but not least automobiles.

I have personally engaged in this business for 18 years. Most recently I have contacted your office in Washington along with several Federal offices whose numbers were recieved thru several phone calls and by divine guidance with the last one directing me to the Chief Council Office. The answers to many questions I was searching for have left me no alternative but to address this letter formally and with utmost concern.

FMVSS205 has existed on the Federal Dept. of Transportation National Institute of Highway Transportation Associations book since 1968. This particular law, which until recently was not made clear to me as a layman of common interpretation, has shocked m e into reality faster than anything has in my 38 years thus far.

I first got started doing the Art of Window Tinting in 1972 in the state of Florida, where I was born. Circumstances have led me to return to Illinois where I had been raised and have resided for the last twenty years.

Sir, the problems I am now faced with are as follows:

Federal Law: FMVSS205 prohibits the use of materials on windows required for driving purposes to be installed by any after market specialty shop on any passenger vehicles that reduce the light transmission to less than 70% visible light.

State enacted laws have been revised and altered in accordance with the now existing Federal Law. Illinois for example, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles manufactured after January 1st. 1982, as long as owner of said vehicle has a letter from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois gives them a letter explaining the medical excuse for such need.

As I see now,a conflict does exist between State and Federal laws.

With the fact in mind that a Federal law supersedes State law, I personally would like to be able to understand why the people of the United States have had to pay State Government and Legislation to enact

their own laws in regards to the use of materials on automobiles, when in all reality there exists this Federal law that strictly prohibits its use as stated above. I personally have been going to our States Capitol office off and on for several years, to speak to representatives pertaining to this matter. I have been harassed by local and state police officers to the point that I was in a state of deep depression with many productive hours lost and personal health as well as respect in the community I and my family reside in.

In addition to the embarassment due to the neglect of enforcement by state and federal authorities of this particular law, I am now afraid to continue the business I am engaged in; which leaves me no means of support for myself and my family.

I am also very confused as to why advertising on the part of all manufactures of this material do so state by pictures that this is a legitimate business and that anyone that so desires may by video or personal training engage in this practice. Understa nding the laws of advertising, I would also like an answer to the reason major auto manufactures are allowed through subliminal message as I see it to advertise new automobiles on television and brochures that these autos may come already tinted less tha n the Federal standards allow. Major film studios are using in certain films automobiles that portray an image of criminal activity or wealth towards individuals driving certain automobiles, limo's, mercedes and the like, which I believe also to be decep tive practices.

I do believe that the crime here should not fall on the responsibility of the individuals such as myself, and that there seems to be a lack of intention on the part of Illinois government bodies as well as parts of the United States Government, to correc t what appears to be inconsistency in upholding the law. With all probability it is possible that through closed eyes for what I believe to be in essence of capitol gains, damage would intail loss of life as well as damage to the environment, through th e obvious procrastination of correction with this matter.

At this point in time I would like to close with the hopes of an immediate response to help with this dilema.

ID: nht95-5.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bonnie Ward -- Eagle County School District RE 50J

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/2/95 LETTER FROM BONNIE WARD TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/28/85 LETTER FROM DIANE K. STEED TO GEORGE L. SIMONTON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Ward:

This responds to your May 2, 1995, letter following up on information provided you by Charles Hott and Leon DeLarm of this agency, concerning the safety of school buses and "over-the-road type coaches" (e.g., Greyhound-type buses). You ask for confirmation that our safety standards for school buses "are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches."

That statement is correct. Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vehicles according to vehicle type. We have FMVSSs that apply to "buses," and those that apply to "school buses." Since a "school bus" is a type of "bus" under our regulations, a new school bus must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to "school buses" in addition to those that apply to "buses." A new over-the-road coach would have to meet our "bus" standards, but not our "school bus" standards.

We would like to emphasize the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. A school bus meeting the school bus 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 some over-the-road coaches, but it has safety features that the coaches 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 making school transportation decisions.

For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet that gives a brief description of the FMVSSs, and an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of our standards.

If you other questions on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bonnie Ward -- Eagle County School District RE 50J

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/2/95 LETTER FROM BONNIE WARD TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/28/85 LETTER FROM DIANE K. STEED TO GEORGE L. SIMONTON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Ward:

This responds to your May 2, 1995, letter following up on information provided you by Charles Hott and Leon DeLarm of this agency, concerning the safety of school buses and "over-the-road type coaches" (e.g., Greyhound-type buses). You ask for confirmat ion that our safety standards for school buses "are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches."

That statement is correct. Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vehicles according to vehicle type. We have FMVSSs that apply to "buses," and those that apply to "school buses." Since a "school bus" is a type of "bus" under our regulations, a new school bus must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to "school buses" in addition to those that apply to "buses." A new over-the-road coach would have to meet our "bus" standards, but not our "school bus" standar ds.

We would like to emphasize the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. A school bus meeting the school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most co mfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of some over-the-road coaches, but it has safety features that the coaches lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exit s 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 making school transportation decisions.

For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet that gives a brief description of the FMVSSs, and an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of our standards.

If you other questions on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.