ID: nht92-6.31

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C. Scott Thiss -- Chairman and CEO, S&W Plastics, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/23/92 from C. Scott Thiss to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7245)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 23, 1992, requesting a re-interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as it applies to your after market product, "High Light." This request is occasioned by the modifications you have made pursuant to my letter of January 23, 1992, to Terry Semprini, and after a meeting with NHTSA personnel on April 16.

Initially, we advised that it appeared that "High Light" had the potential to render inoperative the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. There were three reasons for this advisory. First, the placement of "High Light" to the left of the vertical centerline did not fulfill basic locational requirements of Standard No. 108 applicable to required equipment on new motor vehicles that lamps be located one on each side of the vertical centerline and as far apart as practicable, and thus "High Light's" signals could be perceived as conflicting or unclear when viewed simultaneously with the original equipment lamps. Second, the hazard warning portion of "High Light" operated through the stop lamp portion of the device rather than through the turn signal system, which meant an observer could be faced with the necessity of interpreting the meaning of simultaneously flashing red and amber lamps on the rear of a trailer, as well as the meaning of the original stop lamps should the brakes also be applied. Finally, the stop lamp portion of the device comprised a combination of a "V" and an inverted "V", a lighting array unlike any currently in use, which could create a momentary delay by a following driver in taking appropriate action.

To address these concerns, you have modified "High Light" to eliminate the hazard warning portion, and have changed the stop lamp so that it now appears as horizontal lights across the center of the device. While it is not possible to change the intended location of "High Light" due to the configuration of trailer doors, you believe that its placement in the direct line of vision of a following driver adds to its visibility.

Although you have not fully described the revised configuration of "High Light", we believe that it can now be described as follows. It is a diamond-shape lamp, the left side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a left turn signal, and the right side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a right turn signal. In addition two red lamps in the center form a stop signal. We understand that the amber lamps flash when they are in use, and that the red lamps are steady burning. In this configuration, it would appear that the lamps can serve as auxiliary turn signal and stop lamps without impairing the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires on the rear of trailers. Assuming that our understanding is correct, "High Light" would not appear to render inoperative, either in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

ID: nht92-6.32

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy C. Murphy -- Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights), Transportation Safety Equipment Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/30/92 from Timothy C. Murphy to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7252)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 30, 1992, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation" of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you have enclosed "Figure 1" which "shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps." Accordingly you have concluded "that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp."

NHTSA adopted a definition of "effective projected luminous lens area" on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean "that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . ." No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute "significantly" to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that "the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose", and that "lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design" but instead "take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area."

In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation.

ID: nht92-6.33

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Phil Gramm -- United States Senator

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from Stephen Newmark to Jerry Curry

TEXT:

This responds to your Memorandum attaching correspondence from your constituent Stephen Newmark of Tarrant County. Mr. Newmark, Vice-President of Lonestar Classics, Inc., states that his company "has requested an exemption" from this agency "for the purposes of manufacturing kit cars," and asks your help "in determining whether our exemption will be granted or whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires further information." He also states that "the timing of NHTSA's response is critical to our moving ahead."

Mr. Newmark FAXED the Administrator on May 5, 1992, about the possibility of obtaining an exemption, and followed up with a telephone call to the Office of Chief Counsel on May 15. As we understand it from that conversation, the business plan intended by Lonestar is to sell and deliver a certain number of unassembled components to purchasers who will complete the assembly of the vehicle by providing the engine, drive train, and suspension. We informed Mr. Newmark orally that, given these facts, Lonestar is not considered to be a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Because of this, Lonestar is not required to ensure the compliance of the completed vehicle with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and, hence, no exemption is required for it to implement its business plan.

We informed Mr. Newmark of your interest in his behalf, and that our response to you would also serve as a reply to his FAX of the 5th to the Administrator. For this reason we are providing him a copy of this letter.

ID: nht92-6.34

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gerald A. Guertin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Gerald A. Guertin to Samuel Skinner (OCC 7234)

TEXT:

Your letter of March 30, 1992 to former Secretary Skinner was referred to this agency for reply. You expressed concern that you had not received a response to an earlier letter, addressed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the use of vans to transport school children. I regret that you did not receive a response to your previous letter.

You indicated that you are a school teacher in Florida and asked us to verify your understanding of why you cannot use nine- to 15- passenger vans to transport school children. You stated that, at the present time, seven-person rifle teams, eight-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, and the like are prohibited from being transported in vans and must instead use "gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school buses." Since these clubs must raise their own gas money, you stated that they could get "more trips for the buck" if they could use vans. You indicated that you were permitted to use vans prior to a crash about seven years ago in which a cheerleader was killed. You understand that van roof standards were apparently not what they should be and that NHTSA then "came forward with the need for 'acceptability of crash-worthy tests' for vans," placing the cost of developing and performing such tests on manufacturers. You suggested that van manufacturers opted out of the school van business because they were reluctant to fund the new tests.

Your understanding is not quite correct, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent

users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may USE a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Florida law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

The following is a list of federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses:

Standard Nos. 101 through 104 Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic serivce brake systems) Standard Nos. 106 through 108 Standard Nos. 111 through 113 Standard No. 115 Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems) Standard Nos. 119 and 120 Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems) Standard No. 124 Standard No. 131 (effective September 1, 1992) Standard Nos. 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less) Standard No. 205 Standard Nos. 207 through 210 Standard No. 212 (school busses with a GVWR or 10,000 pounds or less) Standard No. 217 Standard No. 219 (school busses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less)

Standard No. 220 Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) Standard No. 222 Standard Nos. 301 and 302

Of the above-listed standards, only Standard numbers 131 and 220 through 222 apply exclusively to school buses.

All federal motor vehicle safety standards may be found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. The CFRs may be found in your local bar association library, the main public library, or a copy of Title 49, CFR, may be purchased from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 783-3238.

ID: nht92-6.35

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Mark W. Russo

TO: Charles Gauthier -- Director, Defects Investigation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/13/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mark W. Russo (A39; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I want to thank you for taking the time and interest to discuss the "R-BAR" subject with me in the past.

The purpose of this letter is to request from NHTSA an official "review and comment" on the topics outlined below. I have enclosed a coy of the "Test Data" booklet I received from Micho a few weeks ago as it contains information not included in the original package sent to me in October '91.

I am mainly interested in addressing the following:

A. The "applicability" of FMVSS 222 to be used as a "test" or "certification" criteria for the "R-BAR restraining system".

B. The use of "alternate testing methods" to comply with FMVSS 571: S 222-2. "S5.1.4 Seat performance rearward". as appears to be the case in the last three pages of section "3" in Micho's booklet.

C. Background of NHTSA's contacts with Micho Ind. regarding the above subjects and copies of correspondence (if permissible).

D. Any other general comments or technical concerns which might be important, for any school districts to consider, regarding the installation of such a device.

Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated by all concerned for the safety of our children.

ID: nht92-6.36

DATE: May 26, 1992

FROM: Joe Wos -- A & D Lock & Key

TO: Office of Chief Council Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Add.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/24/92 from Paul J. Rice to Joe Wos (A39; Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am a locksmith. I am in the business of rebuilding steering columns that have been damaged during collisions. I have one question I need an answer to. Is it legal to repair an automobile that has had an air bag deployed and not put the air bag back in. In other words can you put a non air bag type steering column into a car that originally had an air bag? Looking forward to your answer.

ID: nht92-6.37

DATE: May 26, 1992

FROM: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-93 from John Womack to Steven Henderson (A41; Std. 108).

TEXT: My name Steven Henderson. I am PhD student in the Department of Psychology a McGill University, where I am studying visual perception. My coinventor David Kernaghan and I have designed, built and filed a patent application for a horn-activated headlight/signallight flasher system that enables motorcyclists to temporarily make themselves more conspicuous to other drivers. I have enclosed the patent application for your information. The U.S. Patent Office has granted claims 1-3 and 7-9 in their first response. Claims 4-6 were contained in a more recently submitted continuation in part (CIP).

The horn flasher is used in the following manner. When a motorcyclist becomes aware that another vehicle is about to encroach on his or her path of travel, a push of the motorcycle's horn button causes the headlight and signal lights to flash 10 times per second. (Ten hz is the frequency to which the human eye is most sensitive.) The flickering light in the car driver's visual periphery will immediately cause him or her to flexively fixate the motorcycle's location. By being made aware of the motorcycle's presence, the car driver is prevented from causing an accident. Our hope is that this invention will help to avert some of the approximately three thousand fatalities suffered annually by motorcyclists in North America.

I have exchanged correspondence with Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Council, NHTSA, concerning the application of DOT Standard No. 108 to our device. I have found his recommendations to be invaluable to our efforts to modify the device to more closely comply with the standard. However, as the invention was not envisioned when the standard was initially written, our device appears not to be in compliance with S5.5.10(c) and (d), and S5.6 of the standard. In his letter of August 28, 1992, Mr. Rice recommends the following:

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders ... You may petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety.

Accordingly, I am acting on Mr. Rice's suggestion, and have enclosed a petition requesting that the agency for rulemaking amend Sections S5.5.10 and S5.6 of Standard No. 108 in order to permit the use of our device. I have also enclosed the U.S patent application submitted for the device. (On the advice of Mr. Rice, the circuit has been modified so that if the horn button is pressed while signalling for a turn, the appropriate signal light flickers at 2 hz, as required by SAE J590, rather than emitting 2 hz bursts of 10 hz flicker,

as does the unmodified circuit. Please also note that the tail light is always steady-burning, as required by Section S5.5.10(d).

As I state in the enclosed petition, I feel very strongly that our device furthers the purpose of Standard No. 108 as stated in Section S2, as it will:

reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents ... by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood.

Furthermore, Section S5.5.10(b) illustrates an intent to allow a device similar to ours, by stating:

(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes.

I therefore request that you grant careful consideration to our petition to amend DOT Standard No. 108 so as to allow the use of our device.

Thank You.

ID: nht92-6.38

DATE: May 25, 1992

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- International Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Paul J. Rice to Guy Dorleans (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Standard 108 specifies different levels of photometric requirements for signal lamps, depending on the number of lighted sections which they have. The highest values are mandatory for those functions obtained by "three lighted sections", as per relevant subparagraph 5.1.1.11 Fig 1b, title 49 in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The use of light-emitting diodes does not permit to distinguish at a glance several distinct lighted sections, because the small size of each individual light source produces an even illumination on the lens. These light sources can not be subjected to voltages bigger than 1,5 Volts, and current state-of-the-art compels the equipment manufacturer to group them in arrays, each of these arrays containing a few diodes in series.

In the case of failure of one diode or its solder, a variation of the illuminance on the lens will be easy to identify. The inner wiring of the diodes will either produce a completely dark array, or increase the brilliance of those diodes not affected by the defect.

In the event where light-emitting diodes, or other non-removable light sources are used in quantities bigger than three, we consider that the provision for "lamps with three lighted sections" applies A FORTIORI, because its severeness will keep the user on the safe side even if the Standard does not specifically address the problems raised by the multiple light sources.

We hereby ask confirmation that our interpretation is correct.

ID: nht92-6.39

DATE: May 25, 1992

FROM: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs for Motor Coach Industries, Inc., and Transportation Manufacturing Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: NHTSA Pre-emptive Authority With Respect to New York Program Bill No. 253

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/19/92 from Paul J. Rice to C.N. Littler (A39; Std. 208; VSA 103)

TEXT:

I have attached, pursuant to our telecon of May 14th, a copy of New York Governor Cuomo's Program Bill No. 253 for a departmental review. We believe that a legitimate argument of interference with Federal pre-emptive authority exists with respect to this proposed State legislation.

The Governor's Bill will require all buses, certified or licensed within New York, or entering New York and performing substantial revenue service; to be equipped with seat belts at all passenger seating positions. The Motor Vehicles Safety Act (1966) Sec 103(d) appears to prohibit the State from mandating vehicle safety standards to a higher level than the Federal standards on all but State owned vehicles.

Therefore, following your review of the attached bill, I would greatly appreciate a legal opinion regarding this issue and/or any other points of note.

Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter, with kindest regards, I remain, respectfully yours.

Attachment GOVERNOR'S PROGRAM BILL 1992 Memorandum

RE: AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to the requirement for seat belts on buses, the reexamination and disqualification of certain bus drivers, and the obligations of bus drivers and motor carriers

PURPOSE:

To increase bus driver qualification standards, to improve the system for providing information regarding the driving recOrd of bus drivers, and to require that certain buses be equipped with seat belts.

SUMMARY OR PROVISIONS:

Section 1 of the bill adds a new subdivision 6 to section 383 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that buses manufactured after July 1, 1993 shall be equipped with seat safety belts, except for buses operated by motor carriers which do not operate more than 100 days or more than ten thousand vehicle miles in the State.

Section 2 of the bill adds a new section 509-bb to the Vehicle and Traffic Law to require the reexamination of bus drivers who have a total of three driving convictions and/or accidents within a three-year period. One of the driver's convictions or accidents will not be counted in that total if the driver successfully completes a motor vehicle accident prevention course approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. The type of accidents which will be counted, as well as the type of reexamination to be administered, will be determined by regulation. If the driver fails the reexamination, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles may suspend, revoke or impose restrictions on the driver's license, and the driver must pass the examination before being authorized to operate a bus.

Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the bill amend sections 509-c(1)(d), 509-c(2)(d), 509-cc(1)(d) and 509-cc(2)(e) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, respectively, to require one-year disqualifications of bus drivers and school bus drivers upon the conviction of three or more serious driving violations, as defined by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, or upon the conviction of five or more driving violations of any kind, within a three-year period. One conviction of such drivers will not be counted in that total if the driver successfully completes a motor vehicle accident prevention course approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the bill add two new paragraphs to sections 509-c (1), 509-c(2), 509-cc(1) and 509-cc(2) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, respectively: 1) to require a one-year disqualification of a bus driver or school bus driver who has failed a reexamination under new section 509-bb of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which is added by section 2 of this bill; and 2) to require a one-year disqualification of a bus driver or school bus driver who has been the subject of such a reexamination, if the driver is convicted of a serious driving violation, is convicted of three or more driving violations of any kind, or is involved in two or more vehicle accidents within an eighteen month period following such reexamination. The type of accidents which will be counted will be determined by regulations of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Section 11 of the bill amends section 509-d(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that, prior to hiring a new bus driver, a motor carrier must obtain the driving record of the applicant and investigate the applicant's employment record.

Section 12 of the bill amends section 509-f of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that motor carriers annually shall require each bus driver to provide the carrier with a list of all traffic violations and all accidents in which the driver was involved during the prior twelve months.

Section 13 of the bill amends section 509-i of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to require the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to notify a motor carrier of any convictions or accidents of a bus driver resulting from the operation of any motor vehicle. Motor carriers will be required to establish an escrow account with the Department of Motor Vehicles, which shall charge a fee to defray the costs of the notification.

Section 14 of the bill amends section 509-j of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to increase the minimum civil penalty for violations of the motor carrier laws and regulations from $250 to $500 per violation, and to increase the maximum penalty from $1000 to $2,500 per violation.

This bill takes affect on the first day of September next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law, provided that no reexamination or disqualification shall be required by the changes made by sections two through ten of the bill solely as a result of convictions or accidents which occurred prior to such effective date.

EXISTING LAW:

Under Section 383 Of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, seat belts are required on passenger vehicles manufactured after 1965 and on school buses manufactured after July 1, 1987, but are not required on other buses.

Under section 506 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles can require the reexamination of any driver who has been involved in three accidents within an eighteen-month period. If the driver fails the examination, the Commissioner may revoke or suspend the driver's license, or may impose restrictions on the use of the license.

Article 19-A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law currently provides for a one-year disqualification of bus drivers who accumulate nine or more points within an eighteen-month period. There is no current requirement for disqualification based upon a driver's involvement in multiple accidents.

Section 509-d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires that, prior to hiring a new bus driver, a motor carrier must "make an inquiry" for the driving record of the applicant, but does not require that the record actually be obtained. Section 509-i of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to provide notification of new driving convictions of bus drivers to those motor carriers which request such information and pay the necessary fee. Section 509-f of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires bus drivers to inform motor carriers of driving convictions, but not accidents.

Under section 509-j of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles can require that a motor carrier pay a civil penalty between $250 and $1000 for violations of the motor carrier laws and regulations.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT:

The tragic bus accident which occurred in Warren County on April 11, 1992 and resulted in the death of two young students from Long Island highlighted three deficiencies in our current law. First, present law does not permit the disqualification of bus drivers based upon prior accidents. Second, the current system of employer review of employees' prior accidents and driving convictions is insufficient. Finally, although seat belts are currently required on cars and school buses, they are not required on charter buses, even if those buses are carrying school children. This bill seeks to cure those deficiencies in the law, in order to reduce the chances of a similar accident in the future.

First, this bill provides that a bus driver who has a total of three serious driving convictions or accidents within a three-year period must undergo a new examination, including a road test. Driving convictions and accidents which occur while the driver is operating a personal vehicle are included in this total. If the driver fails to pass the road test, the driver will be disqualified from operating a bus for one year. If the driver passes the road test, no penalty is imposed, but a subsequent serious conviction or two subsequent accidents within an eighteen-month period will result in a one-year disqualification. In addition, any driver having three convictions within a three-year period will be disqualified for one year.

Second, this bill will reform the present conviction and accident information system. Under current law, a motor carrier is not permitted to hire a new driver unless they "make an inquiry" for the driving record of the applicant from every state in which the applicant worked or held a license during the preceding three years. Simply making the inquiry is all that is necessary, however, and there is no requirement that the record actually be obtained. In addition, every year drivers must inform their employers of motor vehicle violations which have occurred during the prior twelve months, but they are not required to report accidents. Moreover, although DMV operates a system for informing motor carriers of new convictions of their drivers, the program is optional. This bill will correct these inadequacies by requiring that motor carriers actually obtain the driving records of applicants, by requiring that drivers inform their employers of accidents as well convictions each year, and by requiring that all motor carriers take part in DMV's driving conviction notification system.

Finally, State law presently requires that all school buses manufactured after July 1, 1987 and operated in this State be equipped with seat belts, but does not require seat belts on other buses. This bill requires that all buses manufactured after July 1, 1993 and operated in this State be equipped with seat belts, except for buses of motor carriers which do not conduct substantial business within this State.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:

Any increased costs incurred by the Department of Motor Vehicles as a result of this bill will be accommodated within their present budget.

ID: nht92-6.4

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Rovtar -- General Manager, Blazer International Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Steven Rovtar to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7353)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, asking for "a written ruling" that the product you described "meets current SAE/DOT guidelines."

The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product "utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle." Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit.

For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" from "rendering inoperative, in whole or in part," mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them "partially inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied.

We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington

Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.