ID: nht89-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/25/89

FROM: GARRY O. MCCABE

TO: MIKE TRENTACOSTE -- DIRECTOR -- OFFICE OF MOTOR CARRIER STANDARDS HCA -- 10

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GARRY O. MCCABE; REDBOOK A33(2); STANDARD 301 LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM MICHAEL F. TRENTACOSTE TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FHWA AND NHTSA REGULAT IONS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Trentacoste:

The Wiggins Connectors Division of IMO Delaval is working with the Automation R&D Group of United Parcel Service to develop a rapid fueling system for their truck fleet.

The concept is to retrofit the existing fuel tanks to accommodate a dry break quick disconnect fitting. The mating half of this fitting is attached to a standard dispensing nozzle. The vacuum sensing line runs coaxilly through the entire assembly.

At this point it is agreed that we should proceed with a test installation at a small UPS distribution center. The question that arises is what do we need in the way of approvals or sanctions to run a testing program.

We realize that later once the design has been groomed and before it is marketed formal testing and approval is required.

I have discussed this situation briefly with Bob Hagen and as suggested I am enclosing some system drawings of what we are proposing.

After you have had an opportunity to review this information I would appreciate your advice as to what steps should be taken to proceed.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MABEL Y. BULLOCK -- ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG A ND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, NOA-30; LETTER DATED 04/04/8 5 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING.

TEXT: Dear Ms. Bullock:

Thank you for your letter to Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff, regarding North Carolina General Statute 20-127, Windshields must be unobstructed. I regret the delay in responding. You enclosed a copy of the statute, the regulations implementing it, a copy of a December 18, 1987 legal memorandum prepared by your department concluding that a State statute or regulation allowing 35% light transmittance through windows in motor vehicles would be preempted by current Federal safety laws and standards regulati ng this same subject matter, and a copy of a May 6, 1988 letter from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) to Mr. William S. Hiatt, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for North Carolina, asserting that the North Carolina statute was no t preempted by Federal laws and regulations. You asked for my opinion as to whether the North Carolina statute conflicts with any provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) or with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.1 et seq.).

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehic les and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor v ehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or

import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Because of this statutory requirement, any manufacturer, importer, or dealer that installs solar films or other sun screen devices on new glazing materials or the glazing installed in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with th e light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. See section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). Both before and after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including tinting, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative " any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or win dow tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, n o provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles.

The authority of States to regulate glazing is affected by section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)). This section provides that:

[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 ite m of 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. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from en forcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.

The effect of this provision of the Safety Act, with respect to the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, is to expressly prohibit any State from specifying some level of light transmittance other than than 70 percent specified in Standar d No. 205 for new motor vehicles and

new glazing for the use in motor vehicles. Each of the individual States has authority to enforce identical standards (i.e., a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Additionally, eac h of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in that State.

Having provided this background, we want to turn now to the results of our review of the North Carolina statute and regulations, along with your office's memorandum concluding that the statue is preempted by Federal law.

1. New vehicles and new glazing for use in vehicles. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted if it specifies any requirements other than the requirements of Standard No. 205 (minimum of 70 per cent light transmittance) for new vehicles or few new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act and Standard No. 205 require all new vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles to be delivered to the first purchaser w ith a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act expressly preempts any non-identical State standard on the subject of window tinting. Section 20-127(d) of the North Carolina statute appears to permit a single applicat ion of tinted film with a light transmittance of as little as 35 percent to be applied to vehicle glazing after factory delivery, but before sale to the public. This provision is preempted by Federal law, as is any other provision of North Carolina law which specifies that new glazing and glazing in new vehicles shall have some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205.

2. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum tha t the North Carolina statute would be preempted by Federal law if it permits the commercial installation of sunscreen materials so that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer meet the 70 percent light transmittance r equirement specified in Standard No. 205. This conclusion is based on the conflict between the North Carolina statute and the "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That provision prohibits any manufacturer, distributor , dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or an item of glazing with any of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

Apart from the issue of preemption, I want to note that the provisions of State law cannot alter the effect of the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Regardless of how North Carolina law treats the combination of the glazing and the tintin g, if it results in less than 70

percent light transmittance, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on a vehicle would be liable for the Federal civil penalty discussed above.

3. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by individual owners themselves after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. As noted above, Federal law does not regulate modifications that individual owners themselves make to their vehicles or glazing after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, even if those modifications result in the vehicles or glazing on longer complying with the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance. The State of North Carolina is free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, it deems appropriate on individual owner modifications, without regard to the requirements of Standard No. 205. To the extent that the North Carolina statute seeks to address these individual owner modifications, it would not be preempted by Federal law.

$4. Requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State of North Carolina. An individual State is free to establish whatever requirements it deems appropriate for vehicles to be registered in the State, provided that those State requirements would n ot prohibit the registration of vehicles that complied with the requirements of the Federal safety standards. Thus, the State of North Carolina is free to permit vehicles that do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 to be registered in N orth Carolina. To the extent that the North Carolina window tinting statute seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, it would not be preempted by Federal law.

We have also reviewed the May 6, 1988 letter from MEMA to Mr. Hiatt, in which MEMA discusses why it believes North Carolina's statute would not be preempted by Federal law. The MEMA discussion does not address the "render inoperative" provision in secti on 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits commercial businesses from adversely affecting the compliance of elements of design installed in a vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with a safety standards, regardless of whether the vehicle is new or used. As was previously stated, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from ever installing window tinting material for the owner of a car if the combination of the original glazing and the tinting materi al results in less than 70 percent light transmittance through any window of the car.

To summarize, the North Carolina statute would be preempted to the extent that it seeks to permit some level of light transmittance other than that specified in Standard No. 205 for glazing in vehicles prior to the first purchase of the vehicles in good faith for purposes other than resale. Similarly, the statute would be preempted to the extent it seeks to permit the commercial installation of sunscreen materials with the result that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing n o longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. However, the North Carolina statute would not be preempted to the extent that it seeks to regulate the modifications that owners themselves can make to

their vehicles or to the extent that it seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, even if those requirements differ from those specified in Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/14/89

FROM: EUGENIA M. PIERAKOS; JAMES L. PIERAKOS -- SNOWLIFTING EQUIPMENT AND

TO: CONSULTANTS OF BUFFALO INC HENRY J. NOWAK -- 33RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, NY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/27/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HENRY J. NOWAK -- CONGRESS; REDBOOK A33; PART 571; LETTER DATED 04/30/89 FROM HENRY J. NOWAK -- CONGRESS TO JOHN STONNER -- DOT;

TEXT: Dear Congressman:

This firm is the Western New York State dealer for Jaeger Industries, Inc., manufacturers of curbside recycling equipment, brochure and specifications for same enclosed.

For some time now, the manufacturer has attempted to obtain official information/data regarding their equipment, specifically the use of chain steering for dual steering applications; brakes, throttle, etc. They have spoken to various officials in NYSMV D with no success. They have been referred to NHTSA in Washington (202-366-2992), spoken with Asst. Chief Consul Steve Wood and Chief Consul Erika Jones, and no one has provide Jaeger with any definitive answers.

Since USDOT has no office in the Buffalo area, we are asking your help in obtaining the data/regulations that apply to this vehicle, especially the dual steering mechanism, brakes, throttle, etc.

We know you are vitally interested in the recyling programs in our area, and realize that its success is very dependent on good equipment. Several communities in the Buffalo area are planning to purchase these vehicles, but we must be sure that it meets all Federal and State standards. In view of the urgency of this matter, we would appreciate your office expediting same, so that we can have factual information as soon as possible. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

enclosures omitted

ID: nht89-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/14/89

FROM: VIRVE AIROLA -- OY TOPPI AB FINLAND

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL TO VIRVE AIROLA; LETTER DATED 01/26/72 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO K. NAKAJIMA -- TOYOTA

TEXT: Gentlemen;

Our company, Oy Toppi Ab, is a Finnish producer of plastic tubes and hoses. One of our most important products is Air Brake Tubing made of Polyamide PA 11. We produce this tubing both conforming to SAE J 844 and to the German standard DIN 74324.

For some time ago we quoted our tubes to the Swedish truck and bus producer Saab-Scania AB and received their product standard. Among other things this standard states following:

Quote: the manufacturer shall be registered at NHTSA in USA and the symbol DOT constituting certification by the manufacturer that the hose conforms to all applicable FMVSS standards. quote

We have no doubt that we will fullfill the requirements for the register and would appreciate it if you could send us the application formula as soon as possible.

In case any information or details are needed, please let us know and we will send them for you immediately.

Brochures [OMITTED]

ID: nht87-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/87

FROM: BRUCE W. SMITH -- PRESIDENT UNIT CORPORATION

TO: JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/04/87 TO BRUCE W SMITH FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30(2) STANDARD 213, VSA 103 OCC - 211

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Jones

Unit Corporation would like to have your office's recommendation on one of our new products. Talking to a member of your staff we found out that our product will fall under a law called General Defect Responsibility. We would also like this verified.

I hope this report gives you enough information on our final product to give us a recommendation. If you have any questions or suggestions please contact me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Martin V. Chauvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your two letters to this agency concerning safety belts on school buses. Your October 24, 1986 letter to this office asked for clarification of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA in 1976 which stated that seats on large school bu ses are strong enough to absorb the seat belt loads set for belts on smaller school buses. Your October 29, 1986 letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, which has been referred to my office for reply, concerned manufacturers' test data for head form impact requirements of Standards No. 222 and No. 208. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your first letter pertained to retrofitting safety belts on large school buses meeting Standard No. 222. You referred to a 1976 Federal Register notice in which NHTSA said that seats on large school buses that meet Standard No. 222 are strong enough to absorb safety belt loads. You explained that school bus manufacturers disagree with those statements and have indicated that they are not true for most seats on large school buses manufactured since 1977. Your question asked whether manufacturers are r equired to equip large school buses with seats that are strong enough to meet the load requirements set for safety belts in small school buses.

The answer to your question is no. Seats installed on large school buses must meet their own strength requirements set by Standard No. 222. Manufacturers are not required to install seats on large school buses that are capable of meeting the load requi rements set for safety belts on small school buses.

For your information, I am enclosing a May 11, 1978 letter from former Chief Counsel Joseph Levin to Dr. Arthur Yeager, in which we discuss the statement made in Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 you referenced in your letter. Mr. Levin's letter explains that NHT SA had proposed safety belt requirements for large school buses that would have set lower belt load requirements than those currently applicable to small school buses. (In addition, the proposed seat strength requirement was higher than that adopted in Standard No. 222.) Mr. Levin explains that the statement made in Notice 5 was referring to the safety belt requirements formerly proposed for the seats on large school buses, which the seats would be capable of withstanding. It did not mean to imply tha t the seats on large school buses were strong enough to be retrofitted with safety belts and meet the requirements applicable to belts on small school buses.

We believe that manufacturers can design the seats on large school buses to accommodate safety belts which meet the load requirements applicable to belts on the smaller school buses. As you know, NHTSA proposed an amendment to Standard No. 222 which wou ld set such a strength requirement for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses, to ensure that proper belt installations are made. If adopted, the amendment would supersede any conflicting statements in the Yeager letter concerning the load requirements applicable to new large school buses.

In your second letter, you explained that New York enacted a law which sets certain head form impact requirements for school buses. You would like to obtain information from manufacturers regarding the values they obtained for the actual axial accelerat ion of the head form pursuant to Standards No. 208 and No. 222. You asked whether motor vehicle manufacturers are required to submit such test data to NHTSA.

The answer to your question is no. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of motor vehicles or items or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its pr oducts meet all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification . That data is retained by the manufacturer, and is not submitted to NHTSA for approval. NHTSA can request manufacturers to produce records to show how it determined compliance if a question should arise as to the compliance of a particular product wit h NHTSA requirements.

Please note that the New York legislation you mentioned raises an important preemption issue. Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is governed by @103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter 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 of moto r 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. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that requi red to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. We understand that New York's law requires passenger safety belts and additional seat padding on all new school buses manufactured for use in New York. The New York law applies to the same a spect of performance (i.e., passenger crash protection) as Standard No. 222 but specifies performance requirements that are not identical to the Federal standard. In requiring the belts and the additional padding, the New York law is specifying higher r equirements than those in the FMVSS. Section 103(d) preempts higher state requirements except to the extent that they apply to vehicles procured for the State's use. Therefore, the New York law is preempted under the first sentence of @103(d) to the ex tent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in New York to be equipped with belts and extra padding. The law is not preempted to the extent that it requires belts and additional padding for public school buses. The phrase "vehicles procured for [the State's] own use" includes public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ENC.

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

October 24, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

The New York State Department of Transportation has been designated by New York statute as the agency responsible for promulgating regulations dealing with seat belts on school buses. In pursuing this assignment, we have been presented with a problem th at needs clarification from your office.

Enclosed are two documents that refer to standards being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One document is a copy of a page (4017) of the Federal Register. Vol. 41-No. 19-Wednesday, January 28, 1976 (the specific date is somewhat blurred but it is definitely January 20 something 1976). The second document is identified as "Preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222" and is dated October 26, 1976. The question we need clarification on is addressed in bot h documents.

We have been provided an interpretation of these documents (underlined or otherwise marked to identify particular item in question) that indicates that school buses, since 1977 have been required to provide seats that meet safety standard 222 and as such must be capable of accomodating seat belts. School bus body manufacturers advise us that this is not true. In fact, the manufacturers advise us that better than 95 percent of the buses manufacturered since 1977 would not be equipped with seats that ca n accomodate seat belts.

We are looking to you to help clarify this matter. In essence, we want to know if manufacturers are required to equip school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds with seats that can accomodate seat belts (for example, meet the federal standards that have been spelled out for buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

We are faced with some severe time constraints so we would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank for your help.

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ENCLS.

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

October 29, 1986 William, Smith Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Smith:

Enclosed is a copy of a bill that was enacted into law on July 30, 1986 and sets certain requirements for seat belts and seat back padding for school buses.

Section 142 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law provides a broad definition of school bus and applies to passenger cars if used by a school district or by others on a for hire basis to transport pupils. This law specifies that these school bus es (including passenger cars) must meet the head form impact requirement as spelled out in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), 49 CFR Section 571.222 except the impact requirement shall not exceed 800 whereas the federal standard allows 1000.

We are interested in finding out if the automobile manufacturers are required to provide any specific test data that would indicate the actual axial acceleration of the head form as described in FMVSS Section 571.222, S5.3 Impact zone requirements or Sec tion 571.208, S6 Injury criteria. We are trying to determine if the information we are seeking is already available at one central point or if we must deal directly with each manufacturer individually.

Any assistance you can provide in helping us deal with this issue would be greatly appreciated.

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

STATE OF NEW YORK

10596 -- B

R. R. 872

IN ASSEMBLY

March 25, 1986

Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN, GRABER, PASSANNANTE, LASHER, BRODSKY, SCHMIDT -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BIANCHI, BURROWS, CONNELLY, EVE, HALPIN, HARENBERG, LIPSCHUTZ, NEWBURGER, VITALIANO -- read once and referred to the Committee on Transpo rtation -- reported and referred to the Committee on Rules -- Rules Committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to the Committee on Rules -- amended on the special order of third reading, ordered reprinted as amended, retaining its place on the special order of third reading

AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the education law, in relation to seat safety belts for school buses

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-three of the vehicle and traffic law is renumbered subdivision six and a new subdivision five is added to read as follows:

5. (a) Passenger seat safety belts for school buses. Every school bus, as defined in section one hundred forty-two of this chapter, manufactured for use in this state on and after July first, nineteen hundred eighty-seven, shall be designed so that all passenger seats on such vehicle are equipped with seat safety belts and increased seat back padding on passenger seats of a type and specification as approved by the commissioner of transportation through the adoption of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall provide that when any contactable surface of the school bus, as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 49 CFR Section 571.222, is impacted from any direction at twenty-two feet per second by the head form, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the head form impact requirement shall not exceed eight hundred.

(b) Passenger seat safety belts for existing school buses. Any school bus as defined in section one hundred forty-two of this chapter, which is scheduled for retrofitting pursuant to action by a board of education or board of trustees under section t hirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of the education law shall be retrofitted so that all passenger seats on such vehicles are equipped with seat safety belts and additional padding of a type and specification as approved by the commissioner of transportatio n through the adoption of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall provide that when any contactable surface of the school bus as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, 49CFR Section 571.222 is impacted from any direction at twenty-two feet per second by the head form, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the head form impact requirement shall not exceed eight hundred. Furthermore, the commissioner shall have the power thro ugh rules and regulations to exempt certain design school buses from retrofitting in granting such exemptions the commissioner shall consider safety factors, structural integrity of the school buses and any other items deemed necessary to preserve the sa fety and welfare of the school bus passengers. Provided further however that the commissioner of transportation shall not authorize retrofitting of any school bus manufactured prior to April first, nineteen hundred seventy-seven.

@ 2. Paragraph b of subdivision seven of section thirty-six hundred two of the eduction law, as amended by chapter fifty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred eighty-five, is amended to read as follows:

b. For the purposes of this apportionment, approved transportation expense shall be the actual expenditure incurred by a school district and approved by the commissioner (i) for those items for which an allowance would be provided under section thirt y-six hundred twenty-seven for the transportation of pupils as defined in section thirty-six hundred twenty-one if the district were eligible for transportation quota state aid under part two of this article, and (ii) for the transportation required or a uthorized pursuant to article eighty-nine, and (iii) for regional or joint transportation systems and (iv) for computerized bus routing services, (v) for the transportation of any pupil during the school day to and from programs at a board of cooperative educational services or to or from approved shared programs at other school districts, which programs may lead to a diploma or a high school equivalency diploma or to or from occupational education programs operated within the district, (vi) for the pur chase of two-way radios to be used on old and new school buses, and (vii) for the purchase of stop-arms as defined by subdivision twenty of section two of this chapter, to be used on old and new school buses and (viii) for the purchase and installation o f seat safety belts on school buses in accordance with the provisions of section thirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of this chapter. Approved transportation expense shall include employers social security contributions for transportation personnel. Approv ed transportation expense shall also include all salaries and retirement benefits related to transportation, except salaries and retirement benefits for assistant drivers on buses transporting nonhandicapped pupils, and health, life and other insurance p remiums for transportation personnel for whom salaries are approved, premiums for collision and other insurance coverage, uniforms, and equipment and other expenses as approved pursuant to regulations of the commissioner.

@ 3. Section thirty-eight hundred thirteen of such law is amended by adding a new subdivision four to read as follows. (Illegible Lines)

(Illegible Words) Safety belt usage. 1. A board of education or board of trustees may in its discretion, following a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether a resolution shall be adopted, provide for the use of seat safety belts on such s chool buses, in accordance with regulations and standards established by the commissioner under subdivision one of section thirty-six hundred twenty-three of this chapter.

2. Such public hearing, conducted upon reasonable notice, shall be held to consider: (a) whether the district shall install seat safety belts on buses purchased and/or contracted for prior to the effective date of this section and require their use; (b) when such installation shall be provided, and (c) whether use of seat safety belts shall be required on all school buses within the district so equipped after a date to be determined by the board of education or board of trustees.

3. Such hearings shall consider the effect of seat safety belts installation on the total number of students that can be transported on such buses.

4. Within twenty days after the public hearing, the board of education or board of trustees shall, by resolution, determine whether to require installation and use of seat safety belts on some or all school buses.

5. This section shall apply only to vehicles owned or leased by school districts and nonpublic schools, and to vehicles used to perform contracts with such school districts and nonpublic schools for the purpose of transporting school children for hir e.

6. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon boards of (Illegible Word) or boards of trustees to provide seat safety belts on school buses purchased or contracted for prior to the effective date of this section, nor shall any b oard of education or board of trustees be held liable for failure to provide seat safety belts pursuant to this section. A school board member or trustee shall have immunity from any (Illegible Words) liability that might otherwise be incurred or impose d is a result of the provisions of the section provided that such person (Illegible Words) in good faith. For the purpose of any proceeding, civil (Illegible Words) the good faith of any such person shall be presumed.

7. The premissions of this section shall not be apply to school districts which are using safety belts on school buses or have instilled or have (Illegible Word) for the installation of seat safety belts prior to the effective date of this section. @ 8. (Illegible Word) on eof section thirty-six hundred twenty-three of (Illegible Words) amended by chapter two hundred twenty-seven of the laws of (Illegible Words) seventy-nine, is amended to read as follows: (Illegible Lines) efficency and equipment of school buses used to transport pupils, with particular regard to the safety and convenience of such pupils and the suitability and adaptability of such school buses to the requirements of the school district. The capacity of such school buses shall not be in excess of the needs of the school district with reference to the particular route or routes traveled by such school bus. No school bus shall be purchased by a school district or used for the transportation of pupils unless and until it has bee n approved by the commissioner as complying with the rules, standards and specifications relating thereto. No bus manufactured after January first, nineteen hundred seventy-four shall be used to transport pupils under any contract with a school district or board of cooperative educational services unless it has been similarly approved by the commissioner, except that no such approval shall be required for buses used to transport pupils and also used to serve the general public under a certificate of pu blic convenience for the operation of an omnibus line, granted pursuant to the transportation law. The commissioner shall also establish and provide for the enforcement of rules and regulations requiring instruction on the use of seat safety belts as spe cified in subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-three of the vehicle and traffic law and section thirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of this chapter, drills in safe boarding and existing procedures and emergency drills to be conducted on all scho ol buses and shall emphasize specific hazards encountered by children during snow, ice, rain and other inclement weather. All such drills shall include instruction in the importance of orderly conduct by all school bus passengers. A minimum of three su ch drills shall be had on each school bus during the school year, the first to be conducted during the first week of the fall term.

@ 6. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law.

ID: nht87-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bruce Torrey -- Product Performance Specialist, General Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bruce Torrey Product Performance Specialist General Electric Company One Plastics Avenue Pittsfield, MA 01201

Thank you for your letters of August 13, and 26, 1986, concerning how the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, apply to glazing materials installed in the side windows of some New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) buses. As explained be low, the information you provided in your letters and in your phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff and the information provided by NYCTA in a June 19, 1986 letter to the agency indicates the glazing materials installed in the NYCTA buses do not comply with the marking requirements of the standard.

You explained in your letter that the glazing material used in the side and standee windows in the buses is Lexan sheet, which is a plastic material manufactured by General Electric. According to your letter, the Lexan glazing material used in these wind ows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for "AS-5" glazing materials. However, the material apparently was not marked as "AS-5" material, but may have instead been marked "AS-4/6." (Information provided to the agency by t he NYCTA in June 1986 indicates that the windows did not contain any "AS" number. At the time of your phone conversation with Mr. Oesch, you had not been able to confirm what markings, if any, had been placed on the glazing material by General Electric).

Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as "items" in the standard): Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexa n, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, it can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost windows if used for driving visibility.

In addition to setting performance requirements for different items of glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of S6 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked pith the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that "item" of glazing material), a model number and the man ufacturer's logo. The information the agency has received about the markings on the glazing installed in the NYCTA buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.

Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, General Electric is required by Part 573 of our regulations to file a report with the agency providing additional details about the noncompliance and General Electric's plans to remedy the noncompliance. As you requested of Mr. Oesch, I am also enclosing a copy of the agency's regulation concerning the filing of a petition for a determination t hat a noncompliance is inconsequential.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

August 26, 1986

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

Re: Letter from General Electric Company - August 13, 1986

Gentlemen:

In reference to my letter dated August 13, 1986 concerning the incorrect marking of glazing materials a matter of some urgency has come to my attention. It seems that the New York City Transit Authority is exercising exceptional prudence with regard to t his matter. If this situation continues hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of perfectly good material will be excluded from use.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could respond to the following.

Mr. William Wallace New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11207

Mr. R.J. Watters Commercial Plastics & Supply Company Transportation Division 1620 Woodhaven Drive Cornwells Heights, PA 19020

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (413)448-7629. I thank you in advance for you cooperation.

Regards,

Bruce M. Torrey Product Performance Specialist

August 13, 1986

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

Re: Incorrect Glazing Marking

Gentlemen:

In order to satisfy the Department of Transportation in New York City I need an official statement concerning the following matter.

Lexan sheet, manufactured by General Electric Company is a plastic (polycarbonate) material typically used for bus side windows and standee glazings. These products are tested per ANSI Z26.1 standards on a regular basis and submitted to AAMVA for verific ation and certification.

During this process our Lexan@ MR-5000 Bronze tinted material was assigned an AS 4/6 designation, as it appears on the Notice of Equipment Compliance from AAMVA. Apparently a misinterpretation of ANSI Z26.1 test NO. 2 which requires minimum light-transmi ssion value of 70%. (1/4" Bronze Lexan@ MR5000 has a value of 53%).

Instead of being appropriately marked, AS-5, they received the AS 4/6 marking.

The following, details pertinent information.

Material Distributor:

Commercial Plastics & Supply Corp. Transportation Division 1620 Woodhaven Drive Cornwells Heights, PA 19020

Bus Manufacturer:

Blitz Bus & Truck 4525 W. 26th Street Chicago, IL 60623

This particular situation involves some 3,000 side windows and another 390 standee windows.

Enclosed you will find supporting test data and a copy of our original Notice of Equipment Compliance.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (413)448-7629.

Regards,

Bruce M. Torrey

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: nht87-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Senator Strom Thurmond

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/22/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Sterling Troxel; 10/5/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Charles B. Honeycutt; 12/29/77 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Kentucky Dept. of Education; 3/20/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr., to Nebraska Dept. of Mot or Vehicles

TEXT:

Dear Senator Thurmond:

Thank you for your December 8, 1986, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Roy H. Herron of the Anderson County School District No. 3 in Iva, concerning our school bus regulations. 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 his letters to you' Mr. Herron expressed his concern with Federal laws Which he believes prohibit the school district from using 15-passenger vans manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, that do not meet Federal school bus standards. be argues that th ere is a need for school districts to use 15-passenger vans and suggests that we amend our regulations to permit their use.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. As explained below, the Federal requirements apply only to the manufacture and sale of new school buses, not to the operation of school buses after they have been purchased. Thus, there is no Federal law that prohibits the Anderson County School District from using their 15-passenger vans to carry school children. Federal law does, however, affect the manufacture of the vans and their sale to school districts.

I believe it might be helpful to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the School bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments which directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 passengers and likely to be significantly used for student transportation. The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each new school bus manufactured on or after that date. School buses manufactured prior to the effective date of the safety standards were not required to be designed and built in compliance with those standards.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of school buses must ensure that their new vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically applicable to school buses. The Safety Act also requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards or be potentially subject to fines under Federal law. We define a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Since new 15-passenger vans that are sold to the Anderson County School Districts are considered "school buses" under Federal law, persons selling such vans must ensure that the vans conform to Federal school bus safety standards.

Mr. Herron suggests that the definition of a school bus be amended to provide that passenger capacity be extended to 15 passengers. NHTSA's definition of a school bus necessarily follows the statutory definition of that term. Without a change by Congress in the statutory definition, our definition must remain as it is.

Your constituent argues in his letter to you that 15-passenger vans should be safe enough for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the School bus amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that spec ial measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportation. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent perfor mance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to the Anderson County School Districts to transport its pupils to school related events. The school districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, becaus e such vans are considered "multipurpose passenger vehicles"' (MPV's) and not "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of new MPV's to carry school children nor do we require then to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. I nstead, they must meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 8, 1986 Mr. David Sloane, Director Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Suite 10406, 400 Seventh Streets S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloan:

I have enclosed for your review communication from Mr. Roy H. Herron regarding the regulations pertaining to the transporting of students to and from school.

It is my understanding that your regulations allow schools to use vans that Here manufactured on or before April 1, 1977 that do not comply with school bus safety standards, but the schools are not allowed to use new vans unless they comply with all the school bus safety standards.

I would appreciate your explaining these regulations and giving me an up to date status report of this case.

With kindest regards and Greetings of the Season,

Sincerely,

Strom Thurmond

ST/hk Enclosure

November 25, 1986

The Honorable Strom Thurmond The United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Attention Mr. Jeff Kull

Dear Sir:

This letter is follow-up to our conversation this date concerning the use of vans to transport school students to related events.

The more we read into this problem it appears that the Department of Transportation is concerned only with vehicles introduced into the transportation system.

The attached letter, dated March 22, 1979, from then Acting Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Mr. Sterling Troxel states in paragraph three that "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate the sale or use of used vehicles. Therefore , there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling such a used vehicle for school use."

This whole set of regulation is arbitrary. Under current regulations a church group can transport our school students on Saturday and/or Sunday in the same type vehicle we use and be legal.

Your assistance in getting this regulation changed or waived so that school districts can use vans designed to carry 15 passengers or less, including driver, will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herron Superintendent

encls.

The Honorable Strom Thurmond United States Senator Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Senator Thurmond:

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your assistance. We have recently been made aware of Department of Transportation regulations (attached) that prohibit the use of vehicles designed to trans- port more than 10 passengers, that were manufactured af ter 1977, for the purpose of transporting school students unless the vehicle meets school bus specifications.

This school district and the vast majority of other districts in South Carolina use vans for transporting cheerleaders, small athletic teams, students on field trips and other academic related activities.

This regulation does not seem to be well thoughtout. Either a vehicle is safe to carry passengers or it is not; whether they be school children or adults. A van with its higher gross vehicle weight and seats installed higher than most other traffic is mu ch safer than a station wagon or automobile.

The impact of complying with this regulation is substantial. To replace our two vans with minibuses will cost our district $60,000 plus increased operating expenses. We are a small district, therefore, the impact on larger districts is even greater.

We have operated vans for many years with a perfect safety record. They serve a need most effectively and efficiently.

A remedy that will aid all school districts in South Carolina is for DOT to amend its regulation so that vehicles designed to carry 15 passengers or less be exempt from school bus standards. This change will not contribute to reduced safety for our stude nts.

Your assistance in this matter is most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herroxn Superintendent

(See letters from NHTSA to Sterling Troxel, Charles B. Honeycutt, Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles and Kentucky Dept. of Education)

ID: nht87-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Butler Derrick -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/22/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Sterling Troxel; 12/29/77 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Kentucy Dept. of Education; 10/5/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Charles B. Honeycutt

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. George Seaborn of the South Carolina Association of School Superintendents, concerning Federal regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In his letter to you, Mr. Seaborn expresses his concern about a Federal regulation that "excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than 10 persons from use by schools." Mr. Seaborn explains that it would be difficult for school districts to c omply with a restriction on van use since large vans are extensively used for pupil transportation. He believes that schools should be permitted to use vans since those vehicles are safe for transporting passengers other than school children.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our school bus regulations. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition directed against schools or school districts which prevents them from using vans carrying 11 or more persons. Federal law does, howev er, affect the sale of buses to schools. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendm ents to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all "school buses." The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufac tured on or after that date.

The parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federa l law, a van designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) is a "bus," and is a "school bus" if intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. A person way sell a new bus (including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons ) to a school or school district provided that the vehicle meets our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit school districts from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. Mat ters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law. However, in the event a South Carolina school district decides to buy a new school bus, we would like the district to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety Act to sell complying school buses. The seller should ' know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.

Since Mr. Seaborn is interested in transporting students in vans, I would like to clarify a few additional matters concerning our school bus regulations. In his letter to you, your constituent expresses a belief that large vans (i.e ., buses) should be s afe for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that special measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportati on. Fifteen-passenger vans (i. e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent performance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency e xits, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to school districts to transport their pupils to school related events. School districts nay also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, because such vans are consid ered "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's) and not "buses" or "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require them to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Instead, they mus t meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

I hope this information is helpful. We have provided a similar letter to Congressman Robin Tallon who contacted us on behalf of Mr. Seaborn. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance to you and your constituents.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The Honorable Elizabeth H.Dole Secretary of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Secretary Dole:

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter I received from Mr. George W. Seaborn, President, South Carolina Association of School Superintendents. It concerns the Department of National Highway Safety Administration's standards which exclude the use of vans capable of transporting more than ten persons from use by schools.

I would sincerely appreciate the appropriate member of your staff reviewing this matter. Please provide me a response that I may share with Mr. Seaborn.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, I am

Respectfully

BUTLER DERRICK MEMBER of Congress

D/cm

Congressman Butler C. Derrick, Jr. P. O. Box 4126 Anderson, SC 29622

Dear Congressman Derrick:

You will see from the enclosed material that in 1977, the Department of National Highway Safety adopted a standard which excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than ten persons from use by schools. None of the administrators in South Carol ina were aware of this legislation until recently. I am sure that you know that there are hundreds of these vans being operated by South Carolina school districts and many thousands more by school districts across our land. We have three in our school di strict which belong to the state and are furnished to us for the purpose of transporting children to our child development program. We also have our own vans which are used to transport small groups such as golf team, cheerleaders, etc.

All of these vans were legally purchased on the open market in South Carolina. It seems to me that if these vehicles are unsafe to transport youngsters then they are unsafe to transport any citizens in our nation. On the other hand, if they are considere d safe to transport citizens in this country who are not school students, they should be safe to transport school students. This regulation implies that certain classes of our citizens are entitled to higher safety standards than other classes.

I have been asked by my colleagues throughout the state to urge your immediate attention to this matter as all it is doing at the present time is creating additional liability for our schools systems. There is no way I can tell the parents for instance i n our child development program that we can no longer transport their children to their child development classes. I respectfully await your prompt action concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

George W. Seaborn, President South Carolina Association of School Superintendents

November 17, 1986

MEMORANDUM TO: AREA, COUNTY AND DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OF EDUCATION

FROM: H. G. HOLLINGSWORTH, JR., DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT DIVISION OF FINANCE AND OPERATIONS

SUBJECT: SPECIFICATIONS FOR SCHOOL VANS

The Department of Education has been asked to clarify the use of vans owned by school districts as it relates to transporting school children to various school activities.

The. U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, adopted safety standards effective April 1, 1977, which applies to vans transporting school children. The standard requires any vehicle manufactured on or after Apri l 1, 1977, designed to carry more than 10 persons and which is sold to transport school children to or from school or related events must comply with all of the school bus safety standards. It should be noted that vehicles must comply with the standards regardless of the number of students being transported in the vehicle.

For a school district to modify a van purchased after 1977 to meet the standards, would, in our opinion, be cost prohibitive, inasmuch as the standards would require so many changes in the body construction such as tank protection, overhead strength, sea ts, etc.

Attached for your information are copies of letters addressed to individuals in other states from the U. S. Department of Transportation in regard to the above referred to subject.

HGH,Jr :gb Enclosures

See letters from NHTSA to Sterling Troxel, Charles B. Honeycutt and Kentucky Dept. of Education

ID: nht87-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Martin V. Chauvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Martin V. Chauvin Chief, Carrier Safety Bureau New York Department of Transportation Albany, N.Y. 12232

Dear Mr. Chauvin:

This responds to your two letters to this agency concerning safety belts on school buses. Your October 24, 1986 letter to this office asked for clarification of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA in 1976 which stated that seats on large school bus es are strong enough to absorb the seat belt loads set for belts on smaller school buses. Your October 29, 1986 letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, which has been referred to my office for reply, concerned manufacturers' test data for h ead form impact requirements of Standards No. 222 and No. 208. apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your first letter pertained to retrofitting safety belts on large school buses meeting Standard No. 222. You referred to a 1976 Federal Register notice in which NHTSA said that seats on large school buses that meet Standard No. 222 are strong enough to a bsorb safety belt loads. You explained that school bus manufacturers disagree with those statements and have indicated that they are not true for most seats on large school buses manufactured since 1977. Your question asked whether manufacturers are requ ired to equip large school buses with seats that are strong enough to meet the load requirements set for safety belts in small school buses.

The answer to your question is no. Seats installed on large school buses must meet their own strength requirements set by Standard No. 222. Manufacturers are not required to install seats on large school buses that are capable of meeting the load require ments set for safety belts on small school buses.

For your information, I am enclosing a May 11, 1978 letter from former Chief Counsel Joseph Levin to Dr. Arthur Yeager, in which we discuss the statement made in Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 you referenced in your letter. Mr. Levin's letter explains that NHTS A had proposed safety belt requirements for large school buses that would have set lower belt load requirements than those currently applicable to small school buses. (I) addition, the proposed sear strength requirement was higher than that adopted in St andard No. 222.2 Mr. Levin explains that the statement made in Notice 5 was referring to the safety belt requirements formerly proposed for the seats on large school buses, which the seats would be capable of withstanding. It did not mean to imply that t he seats on large school buses were strong enough to be retrofitted with safety belts and meet the requirements applicable to belts on small school buses.

We believe that manufacturers can design the seats on large school buses to accommodate safety belts which meet the load requirements applicable to belts on the smaller school buses. As you know, NHTSA proposed an amendment to Standard No. 222 which woul d set such a strength requirement for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses, to ensure that proper belt installations are made. If adopted, the amendment would supersede any conflicting statements in the Yeager letter concerning th e load requirements applicable to new large school buses.

In your second letter, you explained that New York enacted a law which sets certain head form impact requirements for school buses. You would like to obtain information from manufacturers regarding the values they obtained for the actual axial accelerati on of the head form pursuant to Standards No. 208 and No. 222. You asked whether motor vehicle manufacturers are required to submit such test data to NHTSA.

The answer to your question is no. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its pro ducts meet all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. That data is retained by the manufacturer, and is not submitted to NHTSA for approval. NHTSA can request manufacturers to produce records to show how it determined compliance if a question should arise as to the compliance of a particular product with NH TSA requirements.

Please note that the New York legislation you mentioned raises an important preemption issue. Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is governed by S103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter 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 of motor v ehicle 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. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the gov ernment of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

We understand that New York's law requires passenger safety belts and additional seat padding on all new school buses manufactured for use in New York. The New York law applies to the same aspect of performance (i.e., passenger crash protection) as Stand ard No. 222 but specifies performance requirements that are not identical to the Federal standard. In requiring the belts and the additional padding, the New York law is specifying higher requirements than those in the FMVSS. Section 103(d) preempts high er state requirements except to the extent that they apply to vehicles procured for the State's use. Therefore, the New York law is preempted under the first sentence of S103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in New York to be equipped with belts and extra padding. The law is not preempted to the extent that it requires belts and additional padding for public school buses. The phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" includes public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 24, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, South West Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The New York State Department of Transportation has been designated by New York statute as the agency responsible for promulgating regulations dealing with seat belts on school buses, In pursuing this assignment, we have been presented with a problem tha t needs clarification from your office.

Enclosed are two documents that refer to standards being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One document is a copy of a page (4017) of the Federal Register, Vol. 41-No. 19-Wednesday, January 28, 1976 (the specific d ate is somewhat blurred but it is definitely January 20 something 1976). The second document is identified as "Preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222" and is dated October 26, 1976. The question we need clarification on is addressed in both do cuments.

We have been provided an interpretation of these documents (underlined or otherwise marked to identify particular item in question) that indicates that school buses, since 1977 have been required to provide seats that meet safety standard 222 and as such must be capable of accommodating seat belts. School bus body manufacturers advise us that this is not true. In fact, the manufacturers advise us that better than 95 percent of the buses manufactured since 1977 would not be equipped with seats that can a ccommodate seat belts.

We are looking to you to help clarify this matter. In essence, we want to know If manufacturers are required to equip school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds with seats that can accommodate seat belts (for example, meet the federal standards that have been spelled out for buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

We are faced with some severe time constraints so we would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

October 29, 1986

Mr. William Smith Department of Transportation N.R.M.-12 Room 5320 400 7th Street Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Smith:

Enclosed is a copy of a bill that was enacted into law on July 30, 1986 and sets certain requirements for seat belts and seat back padding for school buses.

Section 142 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law provides a broad definition of school bus and applies to passenger cars if used by a school district or by others on a for hire basis to transport pupils. This law specifies that these school buse s (including passenger cars) must meet the head form impact requirement as spelled out in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), 49 CFR Section 571.222 except the impact requirement shall not exceed 800 whereas the federal standard allows 1000.

We are interested in finding out if the automobile manufacturers are required to provide any specific test data that would indicate the actual axial acceleration of the head form as described in FMVSS Section 571.222, S5.3 Impact zone requirements or Sec tion 571.208. S6 Injury criteria. We are trying to determine if the information we are seeking is already available at one central point or if we must deal directly with each manufacturer individually.

Any assistance you can provide in helping us deal with this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau