ID: 86-6.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Denis H. Oyakawa

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1986, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect the proposed manufacture and sale of aftermarket safety belts by your client. As discussed below, your proposed plan would not violate either the Vehicle Safety Act or our regulations.

You explained that your client has supplied safety belts to a vehicle manufacturer for use both as an item of original equipment in a new vehicle and as item of replacement equipment for sale in the aftermarket. You said your client has recently been requested by the vehicle manufacturer to supply safety belts to be used as a replacement part for an older model vehicle which was exported to and marketed in the United States over 10 years age. You further explained that your client manufactured the original safety belts used in this older model vehicle, but is no longer equipped to readily manufacture the original safety belts.

Your client wishes to supply the vehicle manufacturer with a newer model safety belt. This newer safety belt has been designed to be installed as a replacement part in the older model vehicle and will fully comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. In addition, the safety belt is also designed so that when it is installed in a vehicle, the vehicle will continue to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Finally, you said that the newer model safety belt will not render inoperative any other features of the vehicle necessary to meet any other applicable safety standards.

As you are already aware, your client's proposed safety belt would be required to comply with Standard No. 209. As you are also aware, installation of your client's safety belt by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair shop would be affected by the render inoperative provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, as stated in your letter, your client has determined that installation of the belt will not render inoperative any other safety features of the vehicle. There is another 108(a)(2)(A) related issue raised by your letter. This concerns whether an item of equipment installed in accordance with one version of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard can be replaced with an item of equipment that complies with a later version of that standard. The agency addressed this issue in a letter of July 7, 1975 to Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd. In that letter, the agency explained that it would not be a violation of section 108 as long as the vehicle or equipment complies with the safety standards in effect at the time of its manufacture or with the standards in effect at the time a particular system is replaced or altered, even if the new standards set less stringent performance requirements.

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

SINCERELY,

GRAHAM & JAMES

September 16, 1986

Steven L. Oesch, Esq. U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Chief Counsel's Office

Re: FMVSS NO. 209: Sale of After-Market Seat Belts Our File Reference: TKTS 2.2

Dear Mr. Oesch:

We represent a Japanese manufacturer of motor vehicle seat belts and are writing to obtain confirmation that our client's proposal to manufacture replacement seat belts intended for ultimate distribution in the United States will not contravene the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") nor any regulations or policies of the Department of Transportation relating thereto.

As we discussed in our telephone conversation of September 8, 1986, our client for a number of years has supplied seat belts to a certain Japanese motor vehicle manufacturer (the "Vehicle Manufacturer") for use both as original, installed equipment on new motor vehicles as well as for distribution by the Vehicle Manufacturer as replacement parts in the after-sales market. Our client has recently been requested by the Vehicle Manufacturer to supply seat belts to be used as a replacement part for an older model vehicle which was exported to and marketed in the United States over 10 years ago. The Vehicle Manufacturer will distribute the belts in the U.S. after-sales market through its affiliated U.S. distributor and network of dealers.

Our client manufactured the original seat belts installed in this older model vehicle. Since the technology and equipment associated with manufacturing seat belts has continually been improved over the last 10 years, our client is no longer equipped to readily manufacture the original seat belts. The process of re-tooling its facilities to produce the original seat belt would be extremely costly to our client and would not take advantage of technological advances which have been made since the original belt was first manufactured.

Instead of manufacturing the original seat belt, our client proposes to supply the Vehicle Manufacturer with a newer model seat belt. The newer belt has been designed to be suitable for installation as a replacement part in the motor vehicle in question. Of course, the newer model belt will fully comply with the Seat Belt Assemblies Standard, as set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.209. In addition, the newer model belt is designed such that when installed, the vehicle will continue to satisfy the safety standards set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.208 and @ 571.210. Moreover, the newer model belt will not render inoperative other features of the vehicle necessary to meet any other applicable safety standards.

Our review of this issue indicates that our client's proposal will not violate the Safety Act or any applicable regulations thereunder. Since this plan is one of first impression for our client and involves a substantial commitment of resources, however, we respectfully request an opinion from your office confirming that the proposal outlined above will not violate the Safety Act or any other applicable laws or regulations of the United States which are under the regulatory authority of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Denis H. Oyakawa of GRAHAM & JAMES

ID: 86-6.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Melvin Krewall -- Administrator, Transportation Section, Finance Division, Oklahoma State Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Melvin Krewall, Administrator Transportation Section, Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599

This responds to your August 22, 1986, letter to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller concerning our regulations for school bus manufacturing. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has certified and approved the "Asia Smith Chassis" for school buses. You stated that you need a copy of the certification because Oklahoma requires chassis to be approved by the state Board of Education before they can be sold in Oklahoma.

I would like to begin by clarifying that NHTSA does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This agency regulates motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computers simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. Manufacturers certify their school buses by attaching a label to their vehicles in accordance with our certification procedures. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with applicable safety standards.

A school bus manufacturer who installs a school bus body on a new chassis (such as an Asia Smith chassis) is required by our certification regulations (49 CFR 567 and 568) to certify the completed vehicle to Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those regulations require the chassis manufacturer to furnish information which assists the vehicle manufacturer in making that certification. When certifying its school buses, the manufacturer affirms that the vehicle, including the chassis, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including school bus safety standards.

You indicated that Oklahoma requires school bus chassis to be approved by the state before their sale. I am concerned with this requirement because its imposition could be preempted by operation of the Vehicle Safety Act. The first sentence of section 103(d) of the Safety Act states: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item or motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by the agency concerning the issue of preemption and pre-sale state enforcement of safety standards (47 Fed. Reg. 884; January 7, 1982). The notice discusses NHTSA's position that Federal law preempts state requirements which prescribe the sale of equipment certified to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless the equipment is also approved by the State. We believe that Oklahoma's requirement for approval of school bus chassis is analogous.

As I understand Oklahoma's requirement, it imposes requirements which have the effect of proscribing the sale of certified school buses unless their chassis are also approved by the State. Apparently, school buses manufactured with chassis lacking state approval may not be sold in Oklahoma. Even though the vehicle has been certified as meeting all preempted because it imposes burdens differing in a significant respect from the Federal regulatory scheme.

I hope this information is helpful. If you wish to further discuss the preemption issue or have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

AUGUST 22, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The August/September 1986 issue of School Bus Fleet magazine has an article about Asia Smith Chassis for school buses. They are marketed by Asia Smith Motor Inc. of Plaistow, New Hampshire.

My question to you is, has this chassis been certified and approved for sale in the United States? If it has been certified, where can I receive a copy of the certification showing that it meets all the federal minimum standards. It is imperative that this information be disseminated to us as our State Board of Education must approve all chassis manufacturers after they receive federal approval.

Thank you in advance for this vital information.

Sincerely,

Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division MK:bam

ID: 86-6.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Adam Humes -- General Manager, Marquis Coachcrafters

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my office concerning the effect of our regulations on the conversion of hardtop vehicles into convertibles. You explained that your company will be performing such conversions on new Cadillac Sedan De Villes and you are specifically concerned about how Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, would affect such conversions. I regret the delay in our response.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under Part 567.7 of the agency's certification regulation, a copy of which is enclosed, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable standards. Thus, your company would have to certify that the vehicle you have altered into a convertible still complies with all applicable standards.

In the case of Standard No. 208, S4.1.2.3.2 of the standard permits convertibles to have either a lap or lap/shoulder belt at each front outboard designated seating position. Thus, when you alter a hardtop passenger car, you may remove the lap/shoulder belt and replace it with a lap belt that meets the requirements of S4.1.2.3.2.

Please note that beginning on September 1, 1986, manufacturers must begin phasing-in the installation of automatic restraint systems, such as automatic belts and airbag systems, in their vehicles. For example, S4.1.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires manufacturers to install automatic restraints in ten percent of their passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987. The agency has temporarily excluded convertibles from the automatic restraint requirement during the phase-in period. Instead of automatic restraints, convertibles may have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt.

Please note that the agency's final decision in the ongoing rulemaking on applying the automatic restraint requirement to convertibles may affect the conversion of hard-top cars into convertibles in subsequent years. If the agency does not exempt convertibles permanently from the automatic restraint requirement, then a person changing an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to ensure that the altered cars still complied with the automatic restraint requirement. Likewise, if the agency applied a dynamic test requirement to the manual safety belts used in convertibles, a person altering an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to either retain the automatic restraints or equip the altered vehicles with manual safety belts meeting the dynamic test requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

Steve Oesch -- Office Chief Concel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oesch:

The increasing popularity of convertibles in recent years has led to many questions on the effect of Federal auto safety laws on this practice.

Marquis Coachcrafters manufacture convertible conversions on new O.E.M. front wheel drive Cadillac Sedan De Villes. As a manufacturer of new vehicles, my question to you pretains to Standard 208 and 209, Title #49 of the U.S. Code. Standard 208 states that a seat belt must cover 95% of a persons body to meet Federal standards. But in Standard 209, paragraph 54.1.1.2 states that any automobile that is open aired or a convertible has the option of paragraph 4.1.2.3.2. This option states that Type 1 (lap belt) or Type 2 (combo lap and shoulder) conforms to Federal safety laws 208 and 209.

The information I obtained was from a Mr. Tom Grubbs. He may be reached at the following number. (202) 426-2807.

Thank you for your time, consideration and reply.

Your truly,

Adam Humes General Manager -- MARQUIS COACHCRAFTERS

ID: 86-6.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robin Leeds

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Executive Director Connecticut Operators of School Transportation Association 133 Jerome Avenue Burlington, CT 06013

Dear Ms. Leeds:

This responds to your letter concerning the height of front bumpers on school buses. According to your letter, school bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require front bumpers on all school buses to be located 18 inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, your bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper. I regret the delay in answering your letter.

You are interested in a revision to Connecticut's requirements for school bus bumpers, which would require a bumper height that corresponds to the height used by chassis manufacturers: thereby avoiding the need to reposition or replace original bumpers. However: the state Department of Motor Vehicles believes that the 18 inch height: corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents override of an automobile. You asked three questions related to this issue, which I have addressed below.

I would like to begin with some background information on our bumper standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its Part 581 Bumper Standard pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Vehicle Safety Act). The standard establishes requirements for impact resistance in low-speed front and rear collisions and includes a bumper height requirement. The bumper height requirement prevents override in collisions with other vehicles subject to the standard.

The standard applies to "passenger motor vehicles other than muitipurpose passenger vehicles." The term "passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles" generally corresponds to passenger cars. Title I of the Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks and larger buses from any bumper standards and allows multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) to be exempted from the bumper standard. I believe you are interested in the large: standard school buses to which the standard does not apply.

You first asked whether it would be safer if school bus bumpers Here kept at the position originally utilized by the chassis manufacturer. We are not aware at this time of any indications that it is safer to retain the bumper in its original position. However: NHTSA does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate the safety effects of lowering the bumper. Chassis manufacturers may have considered practical reasons for positioning their bumpers in the manner they have done: since trucks and buses sometimes require greater ground clearance than passenger cars to negotiate ramps and to clear obstacles associated with off-road operation.

Your second question asked whether repositioning or replacing the bumper would affect compliance of the school bus with our motor vehicle safety standards. As you might know: persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.

A dealer that modified the bumper of a school bus: prior to its first sale, would thus be required to certify that the school bus: as altered: complies with all applicable safety standards. A violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would occur if an alterer modified the school bus in such a way that the vehicle no longer complied with an applicable standard. Since the school bus's continued compliance with applicable safety standards depends on many factors, such as the design of the school bus and the nature of work performed on the vehicle: dealers modifying school bus bumpers might want to contact the vehicle manufacturer to learn if any standards might be affected by the lowering of the bumper and obtain any information needed to make the required certification.

Your third question asked "What, if any, liability is incurred by a dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?"

Violations of Vehicle Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1000 per violation, with a maximum fine of 5800:000 for a related series of violations. A dealer altering a school bus can protect Itself from such liability by ensuring that It complies with all relevant Federal requirements.

The issue of possible liability in tort is a matter of state law rather than Federal law. Therefore, we suggest that you consult a local attorney on this question.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions,

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Diedre Hom Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

Bob Williams referred me to you for a possible answer to my inquiry regarding dealer liability.

School bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require that front bumpers on all school buses be located at a height of eighteen inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, it means that our bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper.

We are currently revising the school bus regulations and have suggested standardizing the front bumper height. The state Department of Motor Vehicles, however, continues to believe that the eighteen inch height, corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents override of an automobile.

I have two questions which I hope you can answer:

1. Is there a legitimate justification for leaving the front bumper on school buses as it is placed by the chassis manufacturer?

What, if any, liability is incurred by a dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Robin Leeds Executive Director

P.S. A third question: Does the bus still meet federal standards after the bumper has been modified?

ID: 86-6.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: LeRoy E. Mueller

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. LeRoy E. Mueller President Wisconsin Trailer Company Inc. Richfield, WI 53076

Dear Mr. Mueller:

Don Vierimaa of Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association has asked us to reply to your letter of June 18, 1986, in which you inquired whether a proposed rear lighting system for trailers "meets the regulations governing lights and reflectors." We understand, from your conversation on October 7 with Taylor Vinson of this Office that the trailer in question is a flat bed one, intended to tip forward to facilitate the loading and unloading of cargo.

The requirements for trailer lighting for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more are imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table I lists the required equipment items, and Table II establishes the location for them. With one exception, the system depicted by your Drawing A60686 indicates that the required equipment will be furnished in accordance with Table I. The exception is the apparent failure to provide clearance lamps. These lamps, and the three-lamp identification lamp cluster are required for wide trailers. In our view, it will be necessary to mount additional lamps on the rear of your proposed trailer to provide this function. Paragraph S4.4 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps, and clearance lamps and identification lamps.

However, the location of the lamps as shown in Drawing A60686 does not appear to meet the requirements of Table II. that they be located "on the rear", or the visibility requirements discussed below. The identification lamps and reflectors are located under the platform and 19 inches from its rear edge, while the combination stop-tail-turn signal lamps are 22 inches from the rear edge of the platform. We therefore call your attention to paragraph S4.3.1.1. of Standard No. 108, and the appropriate photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 and SAE standards incorporated by reference for rear lighting equipment. In general, vehicle equipment shall not prevent photometric compliance by rear lighting devices, which shall be located so that at least two square inches of lens area are visible at angles of 45 degrees to the left, and 15 degrees to the right of the centerpoint of the lens. However, if motor vehicle equipment prevents compliance with visibility requirements, auxiliary lamps meeting the visibility requirements shall be provided.

We are mindful that the configuratIons of certain trailers are such that compliance problems may arise that are not easily solved. I enclose a recent letter to a manufacturer who had an interpretative question similar to yours, with the thought it may be of help to you.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Don:

I am enclosing three (3) copies of our drawing number A60686 showing the proposed light system on the rear portion of a trailer which we intend to market.

We would like to have you forward the drawings to the proper individuals in the Department of Transportation who could give us a ruling to whether or not this system meets the regulations governing lights and reflectors. The lights and reflectors are all Class A and meet all D.O.T. requirements.

Thank you for your cooperation In this matter.

Very truly yours, WISCONSIN TRAILER CO., INC.

LeRoy E. Mueller President

LEM/pb Enclosures

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHICS

ID: 86-6.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Slade Gorton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Slade Gorton United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Gorton:

Thank you for your November 3, 1986, letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Laurel Kuther of Clarkston, who asks that safety belts be required on school buses. your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

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

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

Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses and the additional restraint system is needed to provide adequate crash protection for passengers.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 December 1, 1986

Dear Senator Gorton:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mrs. Laurel Kuther.

I have transmitted your Inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Mr. David P. Sloane Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SW, Rm. 10408 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Mrs. Laurel Kuther. As you will note, this constituent is concerned with seat belts on school buses.

Your comments on this matter may be forwarded to my Washington, D.C. office, Senate Office Building. Washington, D.C. 20510. I look forward to your prompt response. PLEASE MARK THE ENVELOPE TO THE ATTENTION OF: Pat McCausland.

Thank you for your attention to this inquiry.

Sincerely,

SLADE GORTON United States Senator

SG:pmm Enclosure SEE HARD COPY OF HAND WRITTEN LETTER

ID: 86-6.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Bridget Ernst, regarding our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In her letter to you, Ms. Ernst enclosed materials issued by the National Coalition for Seat Belts on School Buses which explained why the Coalition believes safety belts should be required by Federal law on all school buses. You asked us to discuss the main counter-arguments against such a requirement, and asked also whether any Federal legislation has been introduced recently to increase the safety requirement on school buses. I am pleased to respond.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to improve school bus safety. Our school bus safety standards apply to various aspects of vehicle performance, including school bus windows and windshields, emergency exits, fuel systems and passenger seating and crash protection.

The safety belt issue your constituent raises involves the safety standard we issued for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of the school bus be improved with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area during an accident. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of their actions to use safety belts. Standard No. 222 requires safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since belts are needed on those vehicles to provide adequate crash protection.

The information from the Coalition that Ms. Ernst enclosed in her letter to you states that safety belts are needed on all school buses to protect children and keep them within their seating compartment in the event of a collision or rollover. We believe that effective passenger crash protection and containment is already provided by compartmentalization and that it would be inappropriate to issue a Federal mandate for safety belts on all school buses. While the effects of compartmentalization are expected to be greater in crashes involving front or rear impacts, the standard also has potential in side impacts and rollovers by minimizing the "hostility" of the crash environment and by limiting the range of movement of an occupant in those two types of crashes.

For your information, I have enclosed a DOT report, "Seat Belts in School Buses" (June 1985),"which provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by your constituent. As explained in the report, school buses in this country have compiled an excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses incorporate more safety by virtue of their greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. Thus, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities is not the same as that for other vehicles, such as passenger cars. Because the safety record of large school buses is very good, we must conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts is not justified at this time.

The Coalition's material enclosed by Ms. Ernst included a statement indicating that NHTSA "supports local district seat belt programs." NHTSA permits the voluntary installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses if the purchaser wishes to have belts installed. We believe that such a decision should be made by individual schools and school districts that have made a reasoned assessment of their particular pupil transportation needs. However, because there are many effective ways to improve pupil transportation safety, such as improving driver training and school bus maintenance programs, it would be inappropriate for us to endorse local district programs for safety belts on school buses. Therefore, for purposes of clarification, we neither support nor discourage school districts' decisions to install safety belts on their large school buses.

You asked about any Federal legislation that had been recently introduced to increase the safety of school buses. The Administration has not proposed any legislation affecting school buses. However, two bills were introduced in the 99th Congress concerning school buses. H.R. 3129 contained a provision calling for a school bus safety study to determine the measures most effective in protecting the safety of school children. H.R. 719 proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. Neither H.R. 3129 nor H.R. 749 was enacted.

In addition, NHTSA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 222 by setting performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed in large school buses. If adopted, this rule would require safety belts voluntarily installed on mew large school buses to meet Federal safety belt standards for strength and proper installation. We are evaluating the comments submitted on our proposal and a final decision on the rulemaking action is expected in the near future.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 24, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

One of my constituents, Ms. Bridget Ernst, has recently informed me of her support for seatbelt requirements on school buses. I have enclosed some information from the National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses which she has brought to my attention. I would appreciate your comments on the safety issues they raise.

Has any legislation been introduced recently on the federal level to increase the safety requirement on school buses? What are the main counter-arguments?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter of concern.

With best wishes,

Cordially,

TED STEVENS

Enclosure

Oct 22, 1986

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Bridget Ernst.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate you contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.,

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbit Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

ID: 86-6.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated October 30, 1986, seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard and seeking our comments on sample reports required under several of our regulations. This letter addresses your question about our bumper standard first, and then comments on your sample reports.

You asked about one of the protective criteria specified in section 581.5(c) of Part 581. Part 581 requires vehicles to meet the damage criteria of that section after specified test impacts.

Section 581.5(c)(8) states:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. (Emphasis added.)

You stated that you understand "exterior surfaces" to refer to the exterior body surface which can be observed without the removal of any components, and that it does not mean the body surface which cannot be observed unless components are removed. Based on this understanding, you stated that you believe that two areas of a car, identified in an attached drawing as Area A and Area B, need not conform to the no damage requirement. Both Area A, a radiator support panel located directly under the headlamp, and Area, B, a fender apron located below the headlamp but along the side of the car, cannot be observed unless the bumper assembly is removed.

Your understanding of "exterior surface," with respect to Areas A and B of your drawing, is correct. Those areas are not exterior surfaces, because they are located behind the bumper assembly and cannot be observed unless that assembly is removed.

Sample Reports

1. 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements

Assuming that the Daihatsu is the only make and type of vehicle you will sell in the United States, the submission of the unique identifier would comply with @ 565.5(b). If you are planning to sell other makes, you would also have to include information on those makes in this submission.

The deciphering information would be sufficient under @ 565.5(d) except for the information about the engine type. The information you suggest providing describes the engine only as a "CB". The term "engine type" is defined at @ 565.3(d) as "a power source with defined characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement, and net brake horsepower." None of these factors can be deciphered from your "CB" marking. The deciphering information should indicate whether this is a gasoline or diesel engine, the number of cylinders, engine displacement, and net brake horsepower. With this modification, the sample report would comply with the requirements of Part 565.

2. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification

The sample identifying information from Daihatsu is sufficient for the purposes of Part 566.

You also asked how accurate this identification must be with respect to the GVWR ranges of the vehicles. As you noted, @ 566.5 (c) requires manufacturers to submit the "approximate ranges" of GVWR for each type of motor vehicle produced by the manufacturer. The agency explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule that it was seeking only basic information on the vehicles produced by the manufacturer. See 36 FR 7970, at 7971; April 28, 1971. Thus, if you wish to state that you produce passenger cars with a GVWR between 2300 and 2500 pounds, as suggested in your letter, that information would satisfy the requirements of Part 566.

You also asked the purpose of requiring the Part 566 report. The purpose was explained as follows in the notice of proposed rulemaking:

In order to carry out the provisions of the Act, it is often necessary to have certain basic information about the manufacturers of motor vehicles or vehicle equipment subject to the Act. This is particularly so in the area of enforcement and in carrying out the several requirements for communication, inspection, and reporting. It is necessary to have centrally organized and collected information regarding the manufacturer's corporate status, mailing address, items manufactured, and manufacturing location. Moreover, it is necessary to assemble this information so as to make it readily accessible to those having enforcement responsibility under the Act, and provide a means for identifying and classifying manufacturers according to the types of motor vehicles or equipment which they manufacture. A system is also needed whereby NHTSA can provide information to manufacturers of various types of vehicles or equipment. 36 FR 7971; April 28, 1971.

3. 49 CFR @ 551.45 Designation of Agent

You first asked whether your sample designation of agent conforms with the requirements of 49 CFR @ 551.45. It does not. Section 551.45 specifies that a designation of agent must include the following six items of information:

1. A certification by the person or persons signing the designation that it is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made.

Your sample contains no such certification.

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer.

This information is set forth only on the letterhead of your stationery. If the corporate name set forth on your stationery is the full legal name, it would satisfy this requirement. If that is not the full legal name, however, the full legal name must be separately shown. The same principle applies to the requirements to submit your principal place of business and mailing address.

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origins of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its legal name.

It is impossible for us to determine whether there are no such marks, if the Daihatsu symbol on your letterhead is the only such mark, or if you have not satisfied this requirement.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.

There is no such statement in your sample.

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the manufacturer.

Your sample would satisfy this requirement.

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. Your sample would satisfy this requirement. Your sample would satisfy this requirment.

You then asked what the designated agent does, and whether all reports had to be submitted to this agency via the designated agent. The designated agent acts as the agent for foreign manufacturers upon whom service of process, notices, orders, and decisions may be made for and on behalf of the manufacturer. Please note that both your designation of agent and acceptance erroneously state that such service may be made by or on behalf of the agent. Under the due process clause of our Constitution, a party cannot be bound by the outcome of a legal proceeding unless he or she has been given notice of such proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. Since we cannot go into a Japanese court, the U.S. government must have some device by which it can ensure that a foreign manufacturer is given proper notice of any proceedings affecting it in the United States. Thus, the designation of an agent by Daihatsu helps to ensure that the company will be fully and promptly apprised of any governmental action involving the company.

Hence, foreign manufacturers are not required to submit reports through their designated agents - the designated agent is only a means for this agency to serve process and so forth on the foreign manufacturer. In fact, we recommend that foreign manufacturers submit reports and other correspondence directly to NHTSA, so as to facilitate the exchange of information.

4. 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

The sample report you submitted is exactly that which is specified in Figure 2 of @ 575.104. It would therefore comply with @ 575.6(a) and @ 575.104(d)(1)(iii). Please note that there are typographical errors for the words "treadwear" and "passenger" in the sample you submitted.

5. 49 CFR @ 575.101, Vehicle Stopping Distance

Your stopping distance sample report is in the format specified in Figure 1 of @ 575.101. Accordingly, it would satisfy the requirements of @ 575.101((c).

6. 49 CFR Part 537, Automotive Fuel Economy Reports

Your sample fuel economy report, including the statement as to representativeness, satisfies the requirements of Part 537. Please note that the timing for submitting the reports is set forth in @ 537.5(b), and that your 1988 pre-model year report is due in December 1987, while your 1988 mid-model year report is due in July 1988.

7. 49 CFR Part 542, Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard

Your sample Part 542 submission would satisfy the requirements of that Part.

Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information on our regulatory requirements.

ID: 86-6.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Edward Brosler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Edward Brosler, Esq. Registered Patent Attorney 3100 Tice Creek Drive - #2 Walnut Creek, CA 94595

Dear Mr. Brosler

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, to the Department of Transportation. We are sorry that your letter of February 17, 1984, was not answered, but the Department is a large one and letters that are addressed to it, rather than to a specific agency or individual, sometimes do not reach the office appropriate for response.

We understand that your client has a patented device which activates the stop lamp when the accelerator is released and before the brake pedal is applied. It also "causes such lights to light up, in an emergency, even before the driver removes his foot from the gas pedal." You "seek approval of the U.S. Department of Transportation" for the device.

The Department, more specifically this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the authority provided us, we establish the federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer is not required to submit products for "approval" before sale, but instead is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle Safety standards, after satisfying itself that the product complies, Federal Safety standards are generally expressed in performance terms, so that the manufacturer may have freedom to design its product to meet the requirements in the way it deems most suitable. We do not specify the use of proprietary devices, and to the extent that proprietary elements may be involved in complying with a standard manufacturers are expected to make available on a royalty free basis the technology involved.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 C.F.R. 571.108) is the standard governing motor vehicle lighting requirements. A stop lamp is defined by the Standard J586c, August 1970 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 100, as a lamp that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to atop or diminish speed by braking." Incorporation of your client's device would send additional messages to a following driver: that the accelerator has been released but that there may be no intention to brake, or that the accelerator has not been released but will be because an emergency has arisen requiring eventual application of the brake pedal. That is to say, the message that the stop lamp is intended to convey should be altered by incorporation of your client's device. Because not all accelerator releases lead to braking, the stop lamp would send a misleading signal. We believe that the device is prohibited as an item of original equipment by paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, because it would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps, and that its installation as an aftermarket device would render the stop lamp system partially inoperative within the prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)(Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). This prohibition forbids modifications affecting equipment installed in accordance with the safety standards when performed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses but not by vehicle owners. However, even if it is permissible under Federal law for a vehicle owner to install the device, any State in which it is sold or used may regulate it. We note your statement that California permits but you should be aware that other States may not.

In arriving at the conclusion that the center highmounted stop lamp was the most effective way to reduce the incidence and severity of rear end collisions, the agency considered deceleration warning systems involving activation of the stop lamps upon release of the accelerator pedal, and did not find that they offered a discernible advantage over standard stop lamps.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 4, 1936

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

I enclose a copy of my letter of February 17, 1984.

Please inform me when you expect to reach it for consideration, as I have not had a reply as yet.

Respectfully, EDWARD BROSLER

February 17, 1984

U. S. Dept. of Transportation Washington, D.C.

We have recently seen a writeup in which you recommend a brake light viewable through the rear window of a car, in expectation that a driver to the rear alerted sooner ad to an emergency and thereby reduce probability of a rear end collision and cut down on occupant deaths, injuries and vehicle damage.

If such a light, or even the conventional brake lights, could, in an emergency, be made to light up before application of the driver's foot to the brake pedal, how much greater assurance one would have to avoid serious rear end collisions and consequential deaths, injuries and car damage. Is this an impossibility? The answer is no.

A client of ours, an experienced race car driver and designer of his own power system improvements, has researched and developed a simple and effective system for not only lighting up the brake lights before the brake pedal is depressed, but causes such lights to light up, in an emergency, even before the driver removes his foot from the gas pedal. The U.S. Patent Office has issued to him, Patents No. 3639898 and 4219710, copies of which are enclosed and which completely disclose his system.

The system has been operated and its effectiveness demonstrated. As a result, the State of California has given its official approval, following which numerous other States have volunteered their official.

We now seek approval of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, but only upon being convinced of the ability of the system to perform its intended function.

If the foregoing information is not sufficient for your purpose, we submit herewith a commercial embodiment which may be installed in most cars by an automobile mechanic in about half an hour and tested by a driver within minutes, to convince him, the brake lights light up before the brake pedal is depressed.

Please note also, that the improvement is supplemental to the conventional brake system and should it, for some unexpected reason to fail to perform, the conventional brake system will continue to function in its normal manner.

We look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Respectfully,

EDWARD BROSLER EB:pb Encls.

ID: 86-6.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DALTON G. FEAGLER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/16/86, TO ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA, FROM DALTON G. FEAGLER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Feagler:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1986, to the Administrator, with respect to your "Dee-Tailer" device, asking for confirmation that it complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, in essence defines a stop lamp as one that indicates the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or to diminish speed by braking. Although you intend your device to indicate a similar intent, it would operate the stop lamp at any time the accelerator was released regardless of whether the driver intended to apply the brake pedal. This could result in confusion to following drivers. The "Dee-Tailer" could therefore be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamp within the prohibition of Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, and hence, unacceptable as an item of original equipment.

With respect to the aftermarket and the permissibility of your device for used vehicles, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part equipment that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard. Thus installation of the "Dee-Tailer" by a person other than the vehicle owner could be considered a violation of the Act. Finally, the acceptability of the device would also depend upon the laws of any State in which it is to be sold or used.

In concluding that the center highmounted stop lamp was the most effective way to reduce the incidence and frequency of low speed rear end collisions, the agency considered deceleration warning devices such as "Dee-Tailer," and found no discernible benefit from their use.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,