ID: Dear [blank] latch in non-DSP 2

ID: 1984-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Seating and Passenger Protection, and FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your first question concerned your interpretation of FMVSS No. 222. You stated that Illinois has told school bus sellers and users that an aisle facing seat may not be installed in vehicles characterized by your state as Type I school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more), unless the seat is necessary in order to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger. Moreover, your state determined that aisle facing seats "installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs" will not be allowed. You asked whether your state has correctly interpreted the requirements of Standard No. 222.

Standard No. 222 exempts from its requirements aisle facing seats which are installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. The term "installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers" includes seats installed longitudinally to provide space for moving wheelchairs through the aisles. Thus, our interpretation of the word "accommodate" is broader than that of Illinois.

We would like to point out that a state requirement that regulates the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard is preempted under @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1381 et seq.), unless the state standard is identical. A state standard which disallows aisle facing seats installed to accommodate the handicapped regulates the same aspect of performance, i.e., seat orientation, as FMVSS No. 222, and would be preempted under @ 103(d).

Your second question stated your understanding that the forward facing requirement in Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 222 does not apply to aisle facing seats in school buses characterized by Illinois as "Type II" school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). You have told school bus sellers and users that aisle facing seats may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. You asked whether your interpretation of the standard is correct.

The answer to your question is that the language of Standard No. 222 does not require school bus passenger seats on a school bus with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds to be forward facing. The requirement for forward facing seats found in S5.1 was not included in S5(b), the section that lists the requirements that smaller school buses must meet.

Your third question concerned the applicability of FMVSS No. 222 to aisle facing seats on school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (your "Type II" school bus). As discussed earlier, Standard No. 222 excludes aisle facing seats installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers from the definition of "school bus passenger seat." Since the performance requirements of the standard that are specified in S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.5, and S5.3, are expressed in reference to the "school bus passenger seats," the requirements do not apply to aisle facing seats which are installed solely to accommodate handicapped passengers. However, Standard No. 222 does require that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, be met "at all seating positions other than the driver's seat." Therefore, the agency concludes that aisle facing seats must have seat belts and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of these standards.

Your fourth question concerned FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, and the use of "theater" type seat cushions. You described that type of seat cushion as containing a hinge near the seat back which allows the cushion to swing up against the seat back. The first part of the question asked whether this type of seat cushion would be allowed by the Federal safety standards. The answer is that the safety standards would not prohibit the use of these folding seats if such seats meet all applicable performance requirements.

The second part of the question asked whether the use of "theater" type seat cushions eliminates the requirements of S5.4.2.1(b) that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. The answer is no. As indicated above, folding seats may be used only if they meet all of the standard's applicable requirements.

The third part of the question asked, "How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?" The answer is that no variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible.

The fourth part of the question concerns S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217 as it applies to your "Type I" and "Type II" school buses. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(b) states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. You asked whether the transverse plane may be positioned 4 to 12 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door. The standard specifies that the plane shall pass through the forward edge of the side emergency door and thus no variation is permissible.

You requested copies of previous interpretations made by the agency concerning school bus seating. These interpretations may be obtained from NHTSA's Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. We will forward your request to them.

SINCERELY,

Illinois Department of Transportation

OCC-1254

September 24, 1984

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Earlier this year during a telephone conversation our Standards Engineer (M. Post) asked Mr. Robert Williams, of your Crash - Worthiness Division, a few questions about requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards governing school bus seating. Mr. Williams said such questions should be submitted to the Chief Counsel's Office and suggested they be sent to your attention. Last May I addressed and sent the attached letter but have received no reply.

When should I expect a reply?

Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ATTACH.

REF. OCC-662

Illinois Department of Transportation

May 21, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Except for certain transit, interurban, charter, and shuttle buses, Illinois standards for Type I school buses (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) and Type II school buses (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) apply to vehicles owned or operated by or for a school and designed to carry more than ten persons. These Illinois standards include, by reference, each federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS -- 49 CFR 571) that applies to school bus. The State owns very few, if any, school buses, but each school bus registered in the State must conform to State school bus rules and standards. Under 15 USC 1392(d) our State requirements for school bus seats must be identical to federal requirements stated in applicable FMVSS.

1. Each Illinois school bus must have an aisle extending from front service entrance area to rear emergency exit. Because of the forward facing and limited spacing requirements in FMVSS 222, S5.1 and S5.2, we have told school bus sellers and users an aisle facing seat may NOT be installed in a Type I school bus unless the seat is required to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger who uses that aisle facing seat. (See definition of school bus passenger seat in FMVSS 222, S4.) For example, an aisle facing seat may be installed to accommodate a student with limited knee movement who cannot sit in forward facing seat close behind barrier or seat back. In Type I school buses we have disallowed aisle facing seat(s) installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs because the aisle facing seat(s) would accommodate, or seat, either normal student passengers or student passengers not requiring the extra space because of limited knee movement or other handicap. The transportation of handicapped student(s) shall NOT be used to deny any other student in a Type I school bus the full protection of a forward facing seat conforming to FMVSS 222. Are these correct interpretations of FMVSS 222 requirements?

2. Because the forward facing requirement in S5.1 and the limited spacing requirement in S5.2 do not apply to Type II school buses we have told school bus sellers and users aisle facing seat(s) may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. In some Type II school buses ALL seats face the aisle. Is "aisle facing seat for any student in Type II school bus" a correct interpretation of FMVSS 222?

3. Recently, additional questions have arisen. In a Type II school bus (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) does FMVSS 222:

a. Require seat belts at each seating position, including seating positions on aisle facing seats?

b. Require seat belts and anchors meet requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210 at each seating position on aisle facing seat?

c. Require aisle facing seat meet requirements of S5.1.2. S5.1.3, S5.1.4 and/or S5.1.5?

d. Require an aisle facing seat be equipped with a seat back?

e. Require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between each seating reference point of aisle facing seat and the seat(s) or other object(s) across the aisle, or require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between the forwardmost seating reference point of an aisle facing seat and the seat or other object(s) forward of that seating reference point?

f. Require that S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both, or neither, be complied with in the case of an aisle facing seat?

4. Both Type I and Type II school buses in Illinois have been equipped with one or more "theater" type seat cushions. This type cushion is arranged with a hinge near the seatback allowing the seating surface of the cushion to swing up against the seatback. The cushion might swing up automatically, under action of spring(s), or might require manual raising and securing into the "up" position. The "theater" type cushion has been used on forward facing seat adjacent to side emergency door and also on forward facing or aisle facing seat(s) in other locations to provide optional use of space either for seating (cushion down) or for wheelchair (cushion up).

a. Do FMVSS either allow or disallow the "theater" type seat cushion?

b. Does the presence of "theater" type seat cushion eliminate the requirement in FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), for a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back to pass through forward edge of side emergency door?

c. How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?

d. Does FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), merely require the forward edge of door be located at or rearward of the plane; i.e., allow the plane to be 4 -- 12 inches forward of forward edge of door? (This condition has been observed on school bus certified under 49 CFR 567 without "theater" type seat cushion.)

Thank you very much for answering these questions. We would also appreciate your providing us with any available earlier interpretations of the FMVSS's governing school bus seating.

Melvin Smith, Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: 22946.rbm

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106





Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask about the applicability of that rule to a conversion that requires a lowered floor.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States, i.e., vehicles that are driven on the public roads and highways of the United States, be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. '' 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). Many of these standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles, while others do so for items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must self-certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). While portions of several FMVSSs were subject to the exemption, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, was not. Additionally, the exception was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle. Accordingly, it does not apply to vehicle alterers.

In your letter, you raised several questions related to the February 27 final rule and FMVSS No. 301, which are detailed below.

1) The Ahnafield Corporation has stated to Mr. Bruce McKay, Program Consultant for Indiana Vocational Rehabilitation Services, that this standard (FMVSS No. 301) does not apply to his products, that it only applies to manufacturers. Please clarify this issue.

FMVSS No. 301 is a vehicle standard that addresses a vehicle's fuel system integrity. How and if the standard applies to the Ahnafield Corporation is dependent upon the product or services that Ahnafield provides. Producers of equipment that is used in a system designed to comply with a particular FMVSS are component suppliers and would not be directly subject to the requirements of the standard, ⁽¹⁾

although any manufacturer or alterer using the product would be. Final stage manufacturers or alterers of vehicles that modify a vehicle system that the previous-stage manufacturer had certified as compliant must certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured or altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. Vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to negate the vehicle's compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards.

Since NHTSA has not included FMVSS No. 301 as part of the exemption from the make inoperative provision, Ahnafield cannot modify a vehicle in a manner that negates compliance with that standard, even if it is a modifier rather than a manufacturer or alterer. Any modifier using an Anhnafield product that would negate compliance would likewise be acting in violation of Federal law.

2) Some vendors are requesting verification as to whether different configurations will meet the FMVSS standard, namely,
Does the Transfer Flo aft of axle fuel tank meet compliance for the 2000 Ford E150?
For a 4" lowered floor, does the OEM fuel system lowered with a skid plate, requiring minor notching of the frame rail with reinforcement, meet compliance?
For a 4" lowered floor, does the OEM fuel tank remaining intact with a 2" body raise meet compliance?
For a 6" lowered floor conversion, does the OEM fuel system lowered, with a skid plate for protection, requiring minor notching of the frame rail meet compliance?

Because there is no exemption related to fuel systems, vehicle modifiers must take care to ensure that they do not modify the vehicle fuel system in a manner that takes it out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. The surest way to provide such assurances would be to purchase vehicles where the floor has already been lowered by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer, who has certified compliance with FMVSS No. 301. Another way to provide assurance that compliance has not been compromised is by modifying the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of crash-testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, we believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Finally, a modifier may use engineering analysis alone to determine whether the vehicle modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. This last option is the most risky since there is no crash-test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment.

NHTSA cannot provide information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass a FMVSS No. 301 crash test. Absent such vehicle specific test data, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with the vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance.

I hope the addresses your concerns. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202)366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.12/10/01

¹ As a practical matter, component suppliers often assume some responsibility for the compliance of their products to applicable FMVSSs. This is done through a contractual relationship between the supplier and the vehicle manufacturer that certifies compliance.

ID: nht91-5.42

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: None (Confidential)

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation-FMVSS 101 "Controls and Displays and FMVSS 208, "Occupant Crash Protection"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-27-91 from Paul Jackson Rice (A38; Std. 208; Std. 101)

TEXT:

A major automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as "The Company") is seeking an interpretation relating to the applicability of a seat belt pretensioner system indicator display with respect to the requirements of FMVSS No. 101; "Controls and Displays" FMVSS No.208; "Occupant Crash Protection".

The Company is planning to incorporate a seat belt "pretensioning" system for active seat belt systems for the front outboard seating positions in some of its future models. The pretensioner system is a device that is designed to retract the belt webbing into the retractor when the vehicle experiences certain frontal area impacts. It is The Company's intention to provide an on board diagnostic system including a malfunction display that will allow the vehicle operator to assess the functional status of the seat belt pretensioner system.

The Company has proposed three alternatives to provide a visual display to illustrate the operational status for the seat belt pretensioner system Those proposals are set forth below.

Proposal #1

The Company proposes to utilize the existing seat belt telltale display field location. Presently, the seat belt telltale illuminates for a period of six seconds following ignition "key on", regardless of whether the seat belt is fastened prior to or following ignition actuation and, in conjunction with a six second audible warning accomplished by either chime or buzzer, signals the occupant to fasten the lap belt webbing of the seat belt. In the event of a pretensioner system failure, a five second period of lamp non-illumination will follow the "fasten belt message, followed by a one second illumination /0.5 second non-illumination cycle which will continue until the ignition key in the lock cylinder is moved to the "off" position. If there is no malfunction in pretensioner system, the only message displayed in the seat belt telltale field will be the "fasten seat belt" message.

Case I - No malfunction in the seat belt pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case II - Malfunction in the seat belt pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 1

Proposal # 7

The second proposal also involves combining the "fasten belt" message and the "pretensioner malfunction", thus creating a condition of "non-discrete" messages for cases where a malfunction in the pretensioner system occurs. In the case of no pretensioner malfunction, two conditions exist: one in which the seat belt is fastened prior to ignition on, and one in which the seat belt is fastened following ignition, In the case where the seat belt is fastened prior to ignition, the fasten belt message will illuminate for seven seconds and then be extinguished. In the case where the ignition is activated prior to belt fastening, the "fasten belt" message is displayed until the belt is fastened. The Company believes that this complies with S4.5.3.3 of FMVSS 208.

Case IA - No malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened prior to ignition on.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case IB - No malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened after ignition on.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 2

Proposal # 2 (Continued)

In the case of a pretensioner system malfunction, two conditions will also exist: one in which the belts are fastened after the ignition is activated. In the case where the belts are fastened prior to ignition, the display will illuminate continuously for a seven second period, followed by a non-illuminated period that will last from zero to 28 seconds. A pretensioner system diagnostic period will begin with ignition key on and will be completed within a seven to 35 second time period Following the diagnostic period, the malfunction in the pretensioner will be identified by a 0.5 on / 0,5 off illumination cycle. In the case where the belts are fastened after ignition, a 7 to 35 second illuminated period of diagnostics will occur, followed by a cycle that includes a 0.5 second period of non-illumination, 0.5 period of illumination, 0.5 second period of non-illumination, and a three second period of illumination. This cycle will continue until the seat belt is fastened, or the ignition is turned to the "key-off" position.

Case IIA - Malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened prior to ignition.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case IIB - Malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened after ignition.

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 2

Proposal # 3

The third proposal involves the use of the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) telltale field that is required under the provisions set forth in FMVSS No. 208, Section 4.5.2, "Readiness Indicator" for devices that deploy upon impact. If there is no malfunction in the pretensioner system and/or the air bag system, the SRS telltale will illuminate for 7 seconds and then extinguish. In the event of a pretensioner system malfunction, the SRS telltale will illuminate for seven seconds, experience a non-illuminated zero to 28 second diagnostic assessment period, and then provide a malfunction message by completing a 0.5 second on / 0.5 second off illumination pattern that will be defeated by moving the ignition key to the "off" position. It should be noted that, in the event of an air bag malfunction, the SRS telltale will also provide the identical message, which will not be distinguishable from a malfunction message for the pretensioner system by the customer. However, the malfunction message will be distinguishable to a trained service technician using diagnostic tools.

Case I - No malfunction in the air bag and / or pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case II - Malfunction in the air bag and / or pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

SRS Readiness Indicator Illumination Schematic for proposal # 3

The Company requests that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide interpretation regarding the proposals as follows:

Proposals # 1 and # 2

1) Does Proposal # 1 and / or Proposal # 2 comply with the requirements of FMVSS 101, S5.4 for use of common space to display messages?

2) Does Proposal # 1 comply with FMVSS 208, 57.3?

3) Does Proposal # 2 comply with FMVSS 208, S4.5.3.3(b)?

4) Is the pretensioner system malfunction message applicable to the "Readiness Indicator" requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.5.2?

5) If the seat belt pretensioner malfunction is interpreted as a "Readiness Indicator" as defined in FMVSS 208, S4.5.2 as a device that deploys upon impact, can its telltale be displayed in a common telltale display field that is required pursuant to FMVSS 101?

Proposal # 3

1) Is it necessary to provide two distinctive messages to indicate an air bag system malfunction and a seat belt pretensioner system malfunction, or is the general message indicating a malfunction in the air bag system and / or belt pretensioner system acceptable?

2) If the pretensioner system malfunction message is interpreted to be a readiness indicator, is it subject to FMVSS 101, S5.4.2. (Are readiness indicators also subject to FMVSS 101 requirements.)?

3) If the seat belt pretensioner malfunction is interpreted as a "Readiness Indicator" as defined as a device that deploys upon impact, can its telltale be displayed in a common telltale display field that is required pursuant to FMVSS 101?

General

Will The Company be required to furnish a separate display field for the pretensioner system operational status if all three proposals are interpreted as not complying with FMVSS 101 or FMVSS 208?

ID: 1984-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Melvin Smith -- Illinois Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/3/89 (est.) from Stephen P. Wood to L.T. Mitchell (Thomas Built Buses) (Redbood A33; Std. 217); 2/24/89 letter from Dan Trexler (Thomas Built) to Joan Tilghman (NHTSA); 4/27/88 letter from L.T. Mitchell to Erika Jones (NHTSA)

TEXT: This responds to your letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Seating and Passenger Protection, and FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your first question concerned your interpretation of FMVSS No. 222. You stated that Illinois has told school bus sellers and users that an aisle facing seat may not be installed in vehicles characterized by your state as Type I school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more), unless the seat is necessary in order to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger. Moreover, your state determined that aisle facing seats "installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs" will not be allowed. You asked whether your state has correctly interpreted the requirements of Standard No. 222.

Standard No. 222 exempts from its requirements aisle facing seats which are installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. The term "installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers" includes seats installed longitudinally to provide space for moving wheelchairs through the aisles. Thus, our interpretation of the word "accommodate" is broader than that of Illinois.

We would like to point out that a state requirement that regulates the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard is preempted under @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), unless the state standard is identical. A state standard which disallows aisle facing seats installed to accommodate the handicapped regulates the same aspect of performance, i.e., seat orientation, as FMVSS No. 222, and would be preempted under @ 103(d).

Your second question stated your understanding that the forward facing requirement in Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 222 does not apply to aisle facing seats in school buses characterized by Illinois as "Type II" school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). You have told school bus sellers and users that aisle facing seats may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. You asked whether your interpretation of the standard is correct.

The answer to your question is that the language of Standard No. 222 does not require school bus passenger seats on a school bus with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds to be forward facing. The requirement for forward facing seats found in S5.1 was not included in S5(b), the section that lists the requirements that smaller school buses must meet.

Your third question concerned the applicability of FMVSS No. 222 to aisle facing seats on school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (your "Type II" school bus). As discussed earlier, Standard No. 222 excludes aisle facing seats installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers from the definition of "school bus passenger seat." Since the performance requirements of the standard that are specified in S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.5, and S5.3, are expressed in reference to the "school bus passenger seats," the requirements do not apply to aisle facing seats which are installed solely to accommodate handicapped passengers. However, Standard Nos. 222 does require that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, be met "at all seating positions other than the driver's seat." Therefore, the agency concludes that aisle facing seats must have seat belts and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of these standards.

Your fourth question concerned FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, and the use of "theater" type seat cushions. You described that type of seat cushion as containing a hinge near the seat back which allows the cushion to swing up against the seat back. The first part of the question asked whether this type of seat cushion would be allowed by the Federal safety standards. The answer is that the safety standards would not prohibit the use of these folding seats if such seats meet all applicable performance requirements.

The second part of the question asked whether the use of "theater" type seat cushions eliminates the requirement of S5.4.2.1(b) that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. The answer is no. As indicated above, folding seats may be used only if they meet all of the standard's applicable requirements.

The third part of the question asked, "How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?" The answer is that no variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible.

The fourth part of the question concerns S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217 as it applies to your "Type I" and "Type II" school buses. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(b) states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. You asked whether the transverse plane may be positioned 4 to 12 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door. The standard specifies that the plane shall pass through the forward edge of the side emergency door and thus no variation is permissible.

You requested copies of previous interpretations made by the agency concerning school bus seating. These interpretations may be obtained from NHTSA's Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. We will forward your request to them.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Illinois Department of Transportation

September 24, 1984

Frank A. Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Earlier this year during a telephone conversation our Standards Engineer (M. Post) asked Mr. Robert Williams, of your Crash-worthiness Division, a few questions about requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards governing school bus seating. Mr. Williams said such questions should be submitted to the Chief Counsel's Office and suggested they be sent to your attention. Last May I addressed and sent the attached letter but have received no reply.

When should I expect a reply?

Sincerely,

Melvin H. Smith -- Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

Attachment

Illinois Department of Transportation

May 21, 1984

FRANK BERNDT -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Except for certain transit, interurban, charter, and shuttle buses, Illinois standards for Type I school buses (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) and Type II school buses (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) apply to vehicles owned or operated by or for a school and designed to carry more than ten persons. These Illinois standards include, by reference, each federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS -- 49 CFR 571) that applies to school bus. The State owns very few, if any, school buses, but each school bus registered in the State must conform to State school bus rules and standards. Under 15 USC 1392(d) our State requirements for school bus seats must be identical to federal requirements stated in applicable FMVSS.

1. Each Illinois school bus must have an aisle extending from front service entrance area to rear emergency exit. Because of the forward facing and limited spacing requirements in FMVSS 222, S5.1 and S5.2, we have told school bus sellers and users an aisle facing seat may NOT be installed in a Type I school bus unless the seat is required to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger who uses that aisle facing seat. (See definition of school bus passenger seat in FMVSS 222, S4.) For example, an aisle facing seat may be installed to accommodate a student with limited knee movement who cannot sit in forward facing seat close behind barrier or seat back. In Type I school buses we have disallowed aisle facing seat(s) installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs because the aisle facing seat(s) would accommodate, or seat, either normal student passengers or student passengers not requiring the extra space because of limited knee movement or other handicap. The transportation of handicapped student(s) shall NOT be used to deny any other student in a Type I school bus the full protection of a forward facing seat conforming to FMVSS 222. Are these correct interpretations of FMVSS 222 requirements?

2. Because the forward facing requirement in S5.1 and the limited spacing requirement in S5.2 do not apply to Type II school buses we have told school bus sellers and users aisle facing seat(s) may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. In some Type II school buses ALL seats face the aisle. Is "aisle facing seat for any student in Type II school bus" a correct interpretation of FMVSS 222?

3. Recently, additional questions have arisen. In a Type II school bus (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) does FMVSS 222:

a. Require seat belts at each seating position, including seating positions on aisle facing seats?

b. Require seat belts and anchors meet requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210 at each seating position on aisle facing seat?

c. Require aisle facing seat meet requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4 and/or S5.1.5?

d. Require an aisle facing seat be equipped with a seat back?

e. Require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between each seating reference point of aisle facing seat and the seat(s) or other object(s) across the aisle, or require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between the forwardmost seating reference point of an aisle facing seat and the seat or other object(s) forward of that seating reference point?

f. Require that S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both, or neither, be complied with in the case of an aisle facing seat?

4. Both Type I and Type II school buses in Illinois have been equipped with one or more "theater" type seat cushions. This type cushion is arranged with a hinge near the seatback allowing the seating surface of the cushion to swing up against the seatback. The cushion might swing up automatically, under action of spring(s), or might require manual raising and securing into the "up" position. The "theater" type cushion has been used on forward facing seat adjacent to side emergency door and also on forward facing or aisle facing seat(s) in other locations to provide optional use of space either for seating (cushion down) or for wheelchair (cushion up).

a. Do FMVSS either allow or disallow the "theater" type seat cushion?

b. Does the presence of "theater" type seat cushion eliminate the requirement in FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), for a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back to pass through forward edge of side emergency door?

c. How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?

d. Does FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), merely require the forward edge of door be located at or rearward of the plane; i.e., allow the plane to be 4 -- 12 inches forward of forward edge of door? (This condition has been observed on school bus certified under 49 CFR 567 without "theater" type seat cushion.)

Thank you very much for answering these questions. We would also appreciate your providing us with any available earlier interpretations of the FMVSS's governing school bus seating.

Sincerely,

Melvin Smith -- Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: Ms Buley

ID: 2865yy

Mr. Robert H. Jones
President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 6066
Tamuning, Guam 96931

Dear Mr. Jones:

This responds to your letters of December 11, l990, and January 22, l99l, to Clive Van Orden of this agency, enclosing copies of your letters to Representative Blaz, dated July 6 and October 11, 1990, and to our Office of Enforcement dated July 5, l990. You have also enclosed a copy of a letter that Governor Guerrero of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) wrote on your behalf on October 11, l990, to Representative Blaz.

Your letter to us of July 5, l990, expresses your understanding that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply in the CNMI, and that you, as an importer, have imported only vehicles that are certified as conforming to the FMVSS; however, certain of your competitors have not. You asked "Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?" To similar effect is your letter of the next day to Representative Blaz. Governor Guerrero's letter to Mr. Blaz expresses his opinion that the FMVSS do not apply in the CNMI.

The Governor explains:

By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except [NHTSA believes he means "accept"] federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since l966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979 [sic]. It looks like we get the law. But that is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for self- government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI. These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands.

[I]t is our position that the FMVSS does [sic] apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

We cannot agree with the Governor's conclusion. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), does apply in the CNMI, as do all regulations such as the FMVSS that are issued under the authority of that law.

The Governor believes that "automobile safety is an internal affair". For the most part we agree, but not with respect to the primacy of the FMVSS. We agree that vehicle registration, taxation, and use of the roads in the CNMI are matters properly under the jurisdiction of the CNMI. Further, the Act permits local jurisdictions to enact or continue in effect their own vehicle safety standards provided that they do not differ from the FMVSS (except as may apply to their own official vehicles). The FMVSS are manufacturing standards that apply when the vehicles are built, imported, and sold.

We are sorry that your observance of the law may have put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you have specific information regarding possible violations of the importation provisions of the Act in the CNMI including the names and addresses of specific businesses or individuals, please communicate that information to Mr. Van Orden. Our sources of information are kept confidential.

Although the FMVSS apply in the CNMI, it is obvious that enforcement of them by this agency is made more difficult by the absence of agency staff in the CNMI. If local government would "move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law", then they may be enforced locally. I cannot think of a single one of the FMVSS that would not be of benefit. Although speeds may be low on the roads of the CNMI, many of the FMVSS are intended to provide crash protection at 30 m.p.h. Obviously, FMVSS that pertain to vehicle lighting, windshield wiping and washing, etc. provide protection at any speed.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Thomas Rabago Highway Safety Coordinator /ref:VSA d:3/ll/9l

ID: nht88-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director, Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers.

This respond to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFa 5571.209). Specifically, you stated that you believe that Standard No. 209 does not specifically address remotely actuated emergency-locking re tractors. You explained that you were referring to retractors that are actuated by a deceleration sensor that is located some distance from the retractor itself. You stated that the existing uncertainty discourage; vehicle manufacturers from considering the introduction of this technology. Additionally your letter claims that it is not clear whether the test procedures in Standard No. 209 are compatible with remote s ensors. NHTSA does not agree that there are existing uncertainties with respect to the applicability of Standard No. 209 to remotely actuated retractors.

The agency first addressed this issue many years back. In a letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota, dated March 16,1973 (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that Standard No. 209 does address the issue of remotely actuated retractors. In that letter, we explained that both the remotely located sensor(s) and the individual solenoids, or other actuating devices on the retractor mechanism itself, would be considered seat belt assembly hardware for the purposes of Standard No. 209. All assembly hardware must be certi fied as complying with the requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 209, including corrosion resistance and temperature resistance. This 1973 letter is still an accurate expression of the agency's opinion on this subject. Accordingly, there is no need to ini tiate rulemaking for Standard No. 209 to "ensure compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept."

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 26, 1988

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On December 1, 1987, representatives from General Motors (GM) and TRW participated in discussions with NHTSA relative to the concept of externally remotely actuated emergency-locking retractors as it might be applied to future seat belt assemblies. At th at time, GM noted that FMVSS 209 does not specifically address a retractor which is actuated by an electrical signal from a remotely located deceleration sensor. This omission introduces a regulatory uncertainty which discourages vehicle manufacturers fr om considering the incorporation of this relatively new technology into their restraint planning. Further, it is unclear whether or not the test procedures contained in FMVSS 249 are compatible with remote sensing. With this letter, we are requesting tha t the agency: 1) provide an interpretation affirming the regulatory permissibility of seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated emergency locking retractors, and 2) initiate rulemaking, if necessary, aimed at ensuring the compatibility of t he FMVSS 209 hardware and assembly test requirements and the remotely actuated seat belt retractor concept.

As the GM representatives noted in the December meeting, a strong case can be made for the position that FMVSS 209 currently provides for the use of remotely actuated retractors. There do not appear to be restrictions in the FMVSS 209 definition of seat belt assembly" which would preclude the use of specific seat belt assembly designs. Further, FMVSS 209 defines an emergency-locking retractor as one, "incorporating adjustment hardware by means of a locking mechanism that is activated by vehicle accelera tion, webbing movement relative to the vehicle, or other automatic action during an emergency and is capable when locked of withstanding restraint forces. We believe that this definition applies to a remotely actuated retractor.

There was general agreement among those in attendance at the December meeting that use of the term "retractor in the FMVSS 209 test procedures that apply (S4.3 and S5.2) could be interpreted logically to be a short hand notation for "retractor sub-system " . Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that neither the regulatory history of FMVSS 209 nor SAE J4c, which served as the basis for FMVSS 209, reference a need to restrict the design of retractors to ones with "built-in " mechanical sensing m echanisms. This view further supports a position that no restrictions have been or were intended to be placed on retractor designs given that the performance requirements of FMVSS 209 could be met.

It is our understanding based on discussions with TRW personnel that remotely actuated retractors can be designed to meet all existing FMVSS 209 performance requirements, including sensitivity. In fact, research to date suggests that the threshold sensit ivity of a retractor actuated by an electrical signal from a remote sensor exceeds that achievable with a retractor which incorporates a built-in mechanical pendulum. Thus, no easing of FMVSS 209 requirements would be needed to enable vehicle manufacture rs to include remotely actuated retractors in their restraint planning. Nor would special considerations be needed to encourage vehicle manufacturers to fully investigate the potential of remote sensing. As noted in TRW's discussion paper which was submi tted to NHTSA after the December meeting (copy attached), remote sensing offers significant potential for retractor downsizing and optimization of retractor locations--important factors in vehicle restraint design. Manufactures may also find further ince ntives when the flexibility offered by retractors which activate by electrical signals from remotely placed sensors is fully analyzed.

GM considers this request to be important because it relates to the compatibility of existing safety requirements with new and emerging technology. It is our understanding that agency policy dictates that its rulemaking not be technology limiting. on tha t basis, we request that NHTSA provide an interpretation that FMVSS 209 currently accommodates seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated retractors. Consistent with such an interpretation, we request that the agency review the hardware and assembly test requirements of FMVSS 209 for the purpose of ensuring compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept.

Finally, GM believes that time is of the essence and urges NHTSA to expedite its action on this request. Toward that end, we stand ready to provide any additional information at our disposal that

ID: nht91-2.25

DATE: March 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

COPYEE: Thomas Rabago -- Highway Safety Coordinator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of December 11, 1990, and January 22, 1991, to Clive Van Orden of this agency, enclosing copies of your letters to Representative Blaz, dated July 6 and October 11, 1990, and to our Office of Enforcement dated July 5, 1990. You have also enclosed a copy of a letter that Governor Guerrero of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) wrote on your behalf on October 11, 1990, to Representative Blaz.

Your letter to us of July 5, 1990, expresses your understanding that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply in the CNMI, and that you, as an importer, have imported only vehicles that are certified as conforming to the FMVSS; however, certain of your competitors have not. You asked "Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?" To similar effect is your letter of the next day to Representative Blaz. Governor Guerrero's letter to Mr. Blaz expresses his opinion that the FMVSS do not apply in the CNMI.

The Governor explains:

By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except (NHTSA believes he means "accept") federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since 1966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979 (sic).

It looks like we get the law. But that is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for self-government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI.

These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands.

(I)t is our position that the FMVSS does (sic) apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

We cannot agree with the Governor's conclusion. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), does apply in the CNMI, as do all regulations such as the FMVSS that are issued under the authority of that law.

The Governor believes that "automobile safety is an internal affair". For the most part we agree, but not with respect to the primacy of the FMVSS. We agree that vehicle registration, taxation, and use of the roads in the CNMI are matters properly under the jurisdiction of the CNMI. Further, the Act permits local jurisdictions to enact or continue in effect their own vehicle safety standards provided that they do not differ from the FMVSS (except as may apply to their own official vehicles). The FMVSS are manufacturing standards that apply when the vehicles are built, imported, and sold.

We are sorry that your observance of the law may have put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you have specific information regarding possible violations of the importation provisions of the Act in the CNMI including the names and addresses of specific businesses or individuals, please communicate that information to Mr. Van Orden. Our sources of information are kept confidential.

Although the FMVSS apply in the CNMI, it is obvious that enforcement of them by this agency is made more difficult by the absence of agency staff in the CNMI. If local government would "move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law", then they may be enforced locally. I cannot think of a single one of the FMVSS that would not be of benefit. Although speeds may be low on the roads of the CNMI, many of the FMVSS are intended to provide crash protection at 30 m.p.h. Obviously, FMVSS that pertain to vehicle lighting, windshield wiping and washing, etc. provide protection at any speed.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

ID: 1984-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, Seating Systems, FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

According to your letter, your company manufactures parcel delivery vans, step vans, and cargo trailers. One of your customers requested the installation of side-facing seats in the cargo area of the vehicle, and you asked whether FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210 apply to these seats. As explained below, Standard No. 207 specifies no requirements for side-facing seats unless they have a hinged or folding back. Standard No. 210 does apply to these seats.

Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat back.

You asked whether side-facing seats in the cargo area are required to meet Standard No. 210. Standard No. 210 exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

You asked what kind of testing is required for side-facing seats to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210. As discussed above, side-facing seats are excluded from the performance requirements of Standard No. 207. Regarding the testing of the seats to FMVSS No. 210, a manufacturer is permitted to use whatever test procedures or method of evaluation he chooses to assure its vehicles are in compliance with this and all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The legal requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) is that the manufacturer exercise due care to determine that his vehicles will be in compliance with all applicable standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the test procedures specified in those standards. Whether a manufacturer has in fact exercised due care cannot be determined by the agency in advance of the actual events leading to the certification of compliance.

Your last question concerned FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You stated that Virginia requires additional side marker lights than that required by Standard No. 108, and requested the agency to advise you on whether a state can specify more requirements than the standard. We assume that Virginia's requirement is a general one which applies to vehicles other than those procured for the state's own use.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states 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 item 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 the 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 required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, had been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

You indicated in the attachment to your letter that the vehicles for which Virginia is requiring the additional side marker lamps are less than 30 feet in overall length. Section S4.1.1.3 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "Intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length." Since the State standard prescribes mounting of side marking lights other than that required by the Federal standard, the State standard is preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Your final question asked whether there are any States other than Virginia that have different requirements than FMVSS No. 108. In general, under Section 103(d) of the Safety Act States are prohibited from imposing safety standards applicable to the same aspect of performance governed by FMVSS No. 108. The limited exception in @103(d) allows States to promulgate requirements applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for the State's own use which impose a higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. States may also regulate aspects of performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are not governed by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. For example, there is no preemption of a State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment, such as foglamps, not currently included in Standard No. 108.

UTILIMASTER

June 29, 1984

Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt: Utilimaster is a commercial truck manufacturer of parcel delivery vans, step vans, and cargo trailers and we have some questions for you.

We have an application where the customer would like to have side-facing seats in the cargo area. Do we need to meet FMVSS 207 or 210 and what kind of testing of these seats is required?

Also, we have a question on FMVSS 108. I had a call from a Virginia dealer stating they require additional side marker lights. Can a State require more lighting and does any other State have different standards than FMVSS 108?

Dan Pugh Product Engineer

(Graphics omitted)