ID: 1984-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Olson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David A. White Senior Safety Engineer Grumman Olson 70180 Centerville Road Sturgis, Michigan 49091

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to our letter of May 3, 1984, asking about Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your letter concerned requirements applicable to a proposed design for an instrument panel which would include controls for heating fan, windshield wiper and washer, and defrosting system. The controls would be identified both by the symbol specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 and the relevant word listed in that table. You asked whether the symbols are required to be illuminated or whether it is permissible instead to illuminate the identifying words without illuminating the symbols. As discussed below, your interpretation of the standard that the symbols must be illuminated is correct.

By way of background information, I would note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 101 generally requires that "any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated n column 3 shall be identified by that symbol." The section states further that "(s)uch a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2." The three controls noted above, heating fan, windshield wiper and washer, and defroster system, are all listed in column 1 and have symbols designated in column 3. Thus, the identification required by section S5.2.1 for these controls are the symbols designated in column 3. Use of the words shown in column 2 in addition to the mandatory symbols is permissible but not required.

Section S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states:

Except for foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console, or steering column, or in the windshield header area, the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompained by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. However, control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield.... Emphasis added.

As discussed above, the identification required by section S5.2.1 for the three controls are the symbols designated in column 3. Since each of the three controls is accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, the required symbols must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. It is thus not permissible to illuminate the identifying words without also illuminating the symbols.

I would note that your letter does not provide sufficient information to determine whether the controls in your proposed design could come within any of Standard No. 101's exceptions to the illumination requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 3, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street S/W Washington, D. C. 20590

ATTN: Frank Berndt

Dear Sir;

Grumman Olson is a manufacturer of walk-in delivery vans. We have a customer who is asking us to use a special instrument panel that I question conforms to F.M.V.S.S. 101. The reason I question the conformity is that S5.2 of F.M.V.S.S. 101 requires that controls listed in column 1 of table 1 that have symbols designated in column 3 shall be identified by those symbols. Optionally the control may, in addition to the symbol, be identified by the word listed in column 2 of table 1.

S5.3 of F.M.V.S.S. 101 states that the identification required in S5.2 shall be illuminated if column 4 of table 1 requires it.

The controls on the instrument panel in question are identified both by the required symbol and the optional word. The symbol, however, is on the control and the word is on the panel itself. Provisions are made to illuminate the word and not the appropriate symbol. I am speaking here of the heating fan, windshield wiper and washer and the defroster system.

I have stated to our customer that the identification that is required is the symbol and it must be illuminated, not the word. I have not been able to convince them of this, so I seek an interpretation from you concerning this matter. The question I ask is, does the symbol have to be illuminated or may the identifying word be illuminated when it is provided with no illumination on the symbol?

I spoke with Ed Glancy of your office concerning this matter and he advised me that N.H.T.S.A. does not give out rulings verbally. He advised me to write this letter requesting an interpretation.

If there are any questions, please call me at your convenience.

David A. White Senior Safety Engineer

DAW/smf

ID: 1984-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hella North America Inc. -- Walter A. Genthe

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 23, 1984

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Westfaelische Metall Industrie KG is currently designing headlamps for several automobile manufacturers.

These headlamps are designed to comply with Safety Standards 108 as amended by Docket 81-11 (latest issue: Notice 7).

Preliminary requests by our customers mandate an inclusion of parking/front position lamps and/or turn signal lamps and/or side marker lamps in the overall headlamp design.

A standard U.S. light bulb, meeting FMVSS 108 and/or applicable SAE recommended practices, will be used for these respective functions.

We intend to incorporate these functions into the headlamp compartment, retaining the bulb in question by means of a sealed attachment, similar to the one used in the C6 capsule installation.

No degradation of the system will result, since both functions are contained in one sealed compartment, covered by one common lens. No impairment of the effectiveness of the headlamp function is anticipated, nor will the headlamp impair the function of the parking/position/side marker lamp.

All photometric and environmental specifications for such lamps will be met and no component will be used which is outside the scope of FMVSS 108.

To clarify our intent, a sketch showing the principal design has been enclosed.

We are requesting a statement concerning the agency's opinion in this matter; specifically, as it concerns the legality of the proposed system, whole or in part, and solicit any suggestions as to necessary changes should the system not be in compliance with FMVSS 108, as amended by Docket 81-11.

This matter is of considerable urgency, because of design and manufacturing lead times.

A reply at yyor early convenience coud therefore be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

HELLA NORTH AMERICA INC.

Walter A. Genthe President

WAG/1h

Encls.

cc: Dr. Ernst, K 1 Mr. Westermann, K 1 Mr. Fikus, AF

Insert artwork here.

MAY 21, 1984

Mr. Walter A. Genthe President Hello North America, Inc. P.O. Box 499 Flora, Illinois 62839

Dear Mr. Genthe:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1984, with respect to the inclusion of other lighting functions in a replaceable bulb headlamp compartment. These functions could include parking lamps, turn signal lamps, or side marker lamps. The bulb used would meet Standard No. 108/SAE specifications for the function chosen and they would be incorporated into the compartment bya a "sealed attachment." You represent that there will be no impairment of any function, and that the overall assembly will meet all photometric and environmental specifications. You have asked whether such a combination assembly is permissible under Standard No. 108.

The agency interprets Standard No. 108's specifications for replaceable bulb headlamps as allowing only one bulb in a lamp assembly to be used for headlighting purposes. It is silent as to whether additional bulbs may be used to provide other lighting functions. This means that such a bulb is permitted.

Obviously the inclusion of a second bulb can affect the characteristics of the assembly, whether through heat build up, the introduction of contaminants through the junction of the bulb and assembly, etc. These problems would appear to be minimized under the assumptions set forth in your letter. We believe therefore that, under these conditions, an auxiliary bulb could be included in the headlighting compartment, provided that the assembly meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108 for each function. Problems that may develop in service would be subject to the safety related defects authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

If Hella proceeds with a multi-bulb, design, we would like to request that it share with us the types of tests it will be developing which it deems necessary to insure adequate safety performance, so that our knowledge of state of the art lamp technology may be broadened.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

C6/C6 **INSERT GRAPH**

**INSERT GRAPH**

ID: 1984-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Marion Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road

High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your recent correspondence concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Your correspondence comprised two letters to this office. In your first letter, you asked two questions regarding the labeling requirements for emergency exits. Your second letter inquired into the provision of push-out windows in buses other than school buses.

Your first question concerns the labeling of emergency exits in non-school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Section 5.5.1 of the Standard requires labels for all emergency exits except for doors and roll-down windows.

The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No. 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially-installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 217 permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll-down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. On the other hand, Section 5.5.1 provides that specially-installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement.

Your second question asked:

Would there be any labeling requirements for push-out windows, on a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?

The answer to your question depends on whether the additional windows are designed or constructed as emergency exits. Standard No. 217 does not require that every exit installed in a school bus beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 must comply with the requirements applicable to school bus exits. On the other hand, additional emergency exits in school buses, beyond those required by Standard No. 217, must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses if the exit is intended as an emergency exit. These additional exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of the standard.

In your second letter to this agency you described a situation where school bus contractors utilize school buses as general transit vehicles on charter trips when the buses are not in use for school purposes. You asked, "Are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?"

The answer to your question is no. The vehicles you described would have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are sold as school buses. Thus, these vehicles would only be subject to the standards applicable to school buses. Further, even though these vehicles are not subject to the safety standards applicable to vehicles other than school buses, I would note that Standard No. 217 does not mandate push-out windows to be used for emergency exits in non-school buses. The agency determined that devices such as panels and doors which meet the emergency exit requirements would be as effective as push-out windows for emergency egress. Sliding emergency exits must, of course, comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 217. They must be capable of complying with the standard when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. Also, while the standard permits devices other than push-out windows to be used for emergency exits, the agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits because they are less likely to "bind up" during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 21, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I would like to request an interpretation of a particular situation which appears to be common among school bus contractors in various states.

Many contractors will purchase school buses to be used to transport students to and from school and school related events, during normal school hours. In the evenings and during the summer the contractors will cover the school bus signs and use these buses for charter trips for various groups.

My question is, are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?

Thank you in advance for your assistance in clearing up this matter.

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jm

Enclosure

cc: Ed Swain Bob Nelson - Wisconsin Dist.

March 19, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

I would like to request interpretations of two areas of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217.76, with regards to the labeling of Emergency exits.

1. FMVSS 217.76, part S5.5.1 appears to require the labeling of all emergency exits in non-school buses with the following exceptions:

A. Windows serving as emergency exits in accordance with S5.5.2.(b) (Push-out windows in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.)

B. Doors in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

Would it, therefore, be correct to assume that a non-school bus 2 with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less has no requirements as to the labeling of emergency exits?

2. Section 5.5.3 of FMVSS 217.76 requires that each school bus emergency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1 be labeled in a specified manner.

A. Would there be any labeling requirements for pushout windows, on a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?

Thank you for your assistance with these matters. Sincerely,

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jm

ID: 1984-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds, to your letter dated January 20, 1984, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether the standard would allow "a secondary, redundant control placed in the rear seat area facilitating operation of the heating/ventilation and audio system functions by rear seat passengers." As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation only represents the agency' s opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Your letter indicates that controls for the heating and ventilation unit would be placed in the rear seating area. You stated that these controls would be "redundant" and "secondary." NHTSA assumes that there will be additional controls for the various functions of the units that are operable by and visible to the driver of the vehicle which meet all applicable requirements of Standard No. 101.

Section 5.2.1 requires identifications of any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 of that section to be visible to the driver. Listed in column 1 are "Heating and/or Air Conditioning Fan," and "Heating and Air Conditioning System."

You asked about illumination requirements in section 5.3 of FMVSS No. 101 that might apply: Again, this section is intended to regulate the controls and displays operable by and visible to the driver, not the controls located in the rear seating area.

In requiring properly located and effectively identified controls and displays under FMVSS No. 101, the agency sought to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the road. Locating secondary controls for passengers in the rear seating area for the heating and ventilation system would not distract the driver from the operation of the motor vehicle. The identification and illumination requirements of sections 5.2 and 5.3 were intended to apply only to the controls operable by and visible to the driver.

You should be aware, however, that section 5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that "the intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph." This section applies to all illumination in the passenger compartment that is dependent on activation of the headlights regardless of whether it shines upon a control display, to enable drivers to reduce the glare in the passenger compartment. Items such as radios and clocks which are not regulated by the location and identification requirements of FMVSS No. 101 are subject to the variable intensity requirements of section 5.3.3 if illuminated when, and only when, the headlights are activated. If the controls located in the rear seating area that operate the heating and ventilation unit are illuminated in this way, the standard requires that the light intensity for such controls must be continuously variable as described in section 5.3.3. You should further note that where you provide a control for the illumination intensity, section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 101 requires that it be operable by the driver, and its identificatian visible to the driver. We interpret this section to require at least one such control to be operable by and its identification visible to the driver. If a manufacturer separately meets the requirement of S5.1 by a properly located and identified control, additional controls that are added voluntarily by the manufacturer are not prohibited.

You indicated in your letter that Mazda is considering placing secondary controls for the audio system in the rear seating area. Controls and displays for audio systems are not regulated by FMVSS No. 101. The location and identification of these controls and displays are left to the discretion of the manufacturer. Once again, however, if the controls are illuminated when, and only when, the headlights are activated, then the same analysis discussed above applies. At least one control for the illumination intensity must be operable by the driver, with its identification visible to the driver.

In conclusion, FMVSS No. 101 does not prohibit placing the secondary controls for the heating and ventilation unit and audio system in the rear seating area. We would like to point out that there are other safety standards which may apply to your proposal that you should consider when you design these features for your automobiles, such as FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda, as well as many other manufacturers, offers a wide variety of vehicles in terms of available equipment. At the extreme end of this spectrum, Mazda endeavors to provide as many comfort and luxury features as possible for both the driver and passengers. One such feature currently under consideration is a secondary, redundant control placed in the rear seat area facilitating operation of the heating/ventilation and audio system functions by rear seat passengers.

Section 5.2.1 of FMVSS 101, however, states that, "The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The identification shall. . . be visible to the driver. . ." Mazda is concerned that this may preclude the introduction of secondary, redundant controls for rear seat passengers. Please comment on this issue. Also, please comment on any illumination requirements that might apply to this feature from Section 5.3 of the same standard.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Branch Manager HN/ab

ID: 1984-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. Kawano General Manager, U.S. Office Toyota Motor Corporation One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Kawano:

This letter replies to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. Your first question concerns the measurement of the lateral width of a head restraint with a "Volvo-type configuration." The drawing attached to your letter appears to depict an adjustable head restraint with a rectangular shape and a hollow center. Paragraph S4(b) of Standard No. 202 requires measurements, according to S4(b)(1) and (2), to be made when the head restraint is "adjusted to its fully extended design position." The lateral width of the head restraint of a individual or bucket seat may be measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point. These are the only two locations at which this measurement may be made. The lateral width may not be measured at part B on your drawing, because B is not the correct location at which to make this measurement. A copy of this drawing is enclosed for your convenience.

Your letter and drawing indicate a concern that, if the lateral width is measured 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint, the hollow space between the two sides of the rectangular head restraint may not be included in measuring the total width. Using the information you have supplied, we believe that the lateral width of this type of head restraint, measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point, would include the hollow space, if the hollow space occurs at either location. The lateral width would also include, of course, the widths of both sides of this restraint, marked A1 and A2 in your drawing. This lateral width may or may not equal the width, B, located at the top of the restraint in your drawing.

Your second question regarding the correct demonstration procedure to test compliance with Standard No. 202 is answered by the language of paragraph S5.2 of the standard. This paragraph states that, if the head restraint conforms to S4(b), compliance is demonstrated in accordance with S5.2 with the head restraint in its fully extended design position. The dynamic testing procedure would not be required, unless your head restraint conforms to paragraph S4(a). The manufacturer has the option of designing a head restraint which meets the performance requirements of either paragraph S4(a) or paragraph S4(b).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 26, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOA-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: Toyota' s Request for Interpretation Regarding Std. 202, "Head Restraints," S4(2) (i) and (ii)

In reference to the above subject matter, Toyota requests clarification of the specified head restraint width.

In FMVSS 202, S4(b), the lateral width of the head restraint is required as follows:

"When measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the head restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point, the lateral width of the head restraint shall not be less than (i) 10 inches for use with bench-type seats; and (ii) 6.75 inches for use with individual seats."

Our question is as follows: If the head restraint has a Volvo-type configuration (see Attachment), which part is used to measure the lateral width? A or B? We believe that B should represent the lateral width of this head restraint. Therefore, if the lateral width B is more than 6.75 inches (individual seat), we believe that the dynamic test (FMVSS 202, S4(a)) is not required.

Please review the attached drawing and inform us of the correct area to measure for width of the head restraint. Your prompt response would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION

J. Kawano General Manager U.S. Office

JK:KY:gcm Enclosure -

"INSERT"

VOLVO-TYPE Head Restraint

ID: 1984-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 20, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the Federal school bus safety standards administered by this agency. You asked three questions regarding passenger seating in school buses and the classification of vehicles as school buses.

Specifically, your questions asked:

(a) There are 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 people, in a school bus. For purposes of the definition of a school bus, is the driver a passenger?

Section 571.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines a "school bus" as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define "bus" as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The driver is considered a "person" under our regulations. Thus, it may be useful to remember that any vehicle that carries more than 10 persons is a bus. Your vehicle which seats 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 persons, would not be considered a school bus.

(b) If a van is originally designed for 11 passengers plus a driver and, because of the definition of a school bus, the school system desires to alter the number of seat spaces by removing seats so that the van will accommodate 9 pupils plus the driver, will this alteration in any way conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity? (I would assume that any structural changes would place liability in the event of accident attributable to that alteration on the local school system making the change.)

In asking whether the alteration will "conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity," we assume that you are asking whether removing the seats of the vehicle changes the classification of that vehicle as a bus. Your letter is not clear whether it is a dealer who will be modifying the vehicle prior to its sale to the school system, after its sale to the school system, or whether the school itself will be modifying the bus after purchasing the vehicle. We will address these situations in our answer.

Altering an 11-passenger van by removing some of its seats so that it would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would classify it as a bus is, in theory, permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification before the vehicle is sold to you, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type from a bus to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to that new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses.

If the modifications to the vehicle are made by a business such as a garage after you purchase the vehicle, the persons modifying the vehicle must not knowing render inoperative the compliance of your vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from rendering inoperative equipment or designs that are incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that a person in any of the above categories would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by the removal of the seat.

The prohibition against rendering inoperative does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a state, which modifies its own vehicles. A school modifying its own vehicles need not assure that the vehicles comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, you are correct in assuming that your school could incur substantial tort liability in the event of an accident involving a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards. This matter should be discussed with your insurance company and attorney. You should further determine whether your State law would prohibit the use of these vehicles to transport school children.

(c) On a 60-passenger school bus, all of the seats except the three rows in the front are removed. Each seat is 39 inches in width and is used to accommodate two high school pupils. The vehicle color is something other than yellow. A floor-to-ceiling barrier, with an emergency opening, is installed behind the three rows of seats. Supplies, materials, tools, equipment, etc., are transported in the rear of the vehicle with up to 12 youngsters plus the driver in the front portion. Given that all these factors exist at one time, will this vehicle be in conflict with any federal standards? If so, which ones?

There are several areas of school bus safety which could be affected by the proposed modification of the vehicle. Since the vehicle will be carrying more than 10 persons, it is categorized as a bus, and classified by its use as a school bus. A threshold issue related to the question you asked concerns, again, the possibility that removing the bus seats will render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the Federal school bus safety standards. The issue depends on whether it is a garage-type business that will be altering the bus, or the school. Modification of a safety system so that it no longer complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture would be a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). As discussed earlier, this prohibition does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a state, which modifies its own vehicles. A school may make any modification that it chooses to its buses. Such action does not violate the Vehicle Safety Act or render the school subject to any penalty under the Act.

However, as you know, private liability might occur if the modifications took the vehicle out of compliance with the safety standard and a student was subsequently injured in one of the buses. Accordingly, the modifications you make should not negatively affect the compliance of your vehicle with the safety standards.

The removal of the bus seats does not appear likely to affect adversely your vehicle's compliance with the Federal safety standards. Those standards do not require the installation of any specific seats or any specified number of seats in school buses. Instead, the standards specify that certain requirements must be met for any seat that is installed. Therefore, if the bus complied with the requirements of the Federal school bus safety standards before its alteration, the proper removal of the seats would not affect the vehicle's compliance.

You propose to install a floor-to-ceiling barrier in the vehicle behind the three rows of seats. Your letter does not describe this barrier in detail, but states that it contains an emergency opening. We are concerned that this barrier would render the vehicle in noncompliance with the requirements for emergency exits found in FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Standard No. 217 regulates the number and size of school bus emergency exits and requires that the release mechanisms of those exits be readily accessible. The purpose of these requirements is to provide an easily operable, unobstructed school bus emergency exit. In the past, the agency has preempted a State requirement for a safety chain that would have been placed across an exit, because we viewed the chain as providing an obstruction to the opening. We have also interpreted the Standard to prohibit a ramp used for transporting the handicapped when the ramp partially blocked the rear emergency exit when it folded into the bus. Your letter did not describe in detail the floor-to-ceiling barrier in your bus and we are unable to form an opinion as to the compliance of the altered vehicle with Standard No. 217. However, if the barrier provides an impediment to the emergency exit then the alteration might conflict with FMVSS No. 217. Further, if the barrier conflicted with Standard No. 217, then it could not be added as aftermarket equipment by any manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, without rendering inoperative the compliance of the bus with the safety standard.

Finally, you indicated that the school bus would be a color other than yellow. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly permitted school vehicles carrying 16 or less students to or from school (i.e., "Type II" school vehicles) to be marked, painted, and lighted in one of two ways. The buses could be either marked, painted, and lighted as school buses, or marked, painted, and lighted differently than school buses. However, all school buses now must have the lighting of a school bus required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Since all school buses must have the lighting of a school bus, under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 they also must have the painting and marking of a school bus.

SINCERELY,

MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

March 20, 1984

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel, NHTSA NHTSA NTS-31 U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt: In reviewing CFR 49 (definition of a school bus), the information which you provided recently to school bus contractors in Wisconsin, and Section 201 of Public Law 93-492, I confess I am confused as to who are the passengers on a school bus.

One of my specific questions, I believe, concerns whether the driver is considered as a passenger in a school bus. Below are several situations for which I would like clarification.

(a) There are 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 people, in a school bus. For purposes of definition of a school bus, is the driver a passenger?

(b) If a van is originally designed for 11 passengers plus a driver and, because of the definition of school bus, the school system desires to alter the number of seat spaces by removing seats so that the van will accommodate 9 pupils plus the driver, will this alteration in any way conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity? (I would assume that any structural changes would place liability in the event of accident attributable to that alteration on the local school system making the change.)

(c) On a 60-passenger school bus, all of the seats except the three rows in the front are removed. Each seat is 39 inches in width and is used to accommodate two high school pupils. The vehicle color is something other than yellow. A floor-to-ceiling barrier, with an emergency opening, is installed behind the three rows of seats. Supplies, materials, tools, equipment, etc., are transported in the rear of the vehicle with up to 12 youngsters plus the driver in the front portion. Given that all these factors exist at one time, will this vehicle be in conflict with any federal standards? If so, which ones?

I have tried to be as specific as possible in the details provided, but it may well be that further amplification on my part is necessary. Please do not hesitate to call me at (301) 659-2602 so that we might discuss the matter before you reply.

Thank you very much for your cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Wm. Richard Alexander, Chief Pupil Transportation Section

ID: 1984-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG Abt. ESV z. Hd. Hern Mayer Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your letter about Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, and Safety Standard No. 101, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. Your letter asked two questions concerning whether a proposed design for a passenger car automatic transmission shift lever would meet the requirements of those standards. Your questions are answered below. This letter also discusses additional issues raised by your proposed design that were not directly raised by your letter. Finally, since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, which explains how you may apply for confidential treatment of design information.

By way of background information, I would note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter and accompanying drawing, the design you are considering may be generally described as follows. The shift lever would be mounted on the floor console and would not be identified. A display for the transmission sequence would be provided on the instrument panel. All eligible positions would be permanently in view of the driver, and the selected position would be identified through more intense illumination.

Your first question is whether it is permissible under these standards for a manufacturer not to provide identification for the shift lever. The answer to that question is yes. Neither Standard No. 101 nor Standard No. 102 includes any requirement concerning identification of an automatic transmission shift lever. Moreover, no other Federal motor vehicle safety standard includes such a requirement.

The identification and other requirements of Standard No. 101 only apply to the controls and displays listed in the standard. Since automatic transmission shift levels are not among the controls listed in the standard, the standard's requirements are not applicable. Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions... shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Section S3.2. NHTSA has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator. The section does not, however, require the shift lever control itself to be identified. Your second question is whether Standard No. 101 or Standard No. 102 requires the shift lever to be within a certain reaching distance to be operable by the driver while driving the vehicle. The answer to that question is no.

As your letter pointed out, Standard No. 101 does require certain controls to be operable by the driver when the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As explained in the answer to your first question, however, the requirements of Standard No. 101 are not applicable to automatic transmission shift levers. I would note that the term "manual transmission shift lever," listed in section S5.1 of the standard, does not incorporate automatic transmission shift levers. Similarly, Standard No. 102 does not include any requirements concerning the location of the shift lever.

I would like to point out two additional issues raised by your proposed design. The first concerns the requirement in Standard No. 102 that "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions... shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Section S3.2. NHTSA interprets "position" to mean the position of the gears in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected. Thus, as noted above, the agency has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator.

Moreover, the agency has interpreted this section's use of the words "permanently displayed" to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, a display that would not be seen when the ignition is in the "off" position does not comply with these requirements. (A letter which discusses this interpretation is enclosed. The letter is addressed to Ford.)

Taking these interpretations together, Standard No. 102 requires the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator, both of which must be capable of being seen regardless of whether the ignition is on or off. It is not clear whether your proposed design meets these requirements. Your letter states that all eligible positions are permanently in view of the driver and the selected position is identified through more intense illumination. First, with regard to the gear lever sequence, it is not clear whether your letter's use of the word "permanently" covers periods of time when the ignition is not on.

Second, with regard to the gear position indicator, it is not clear whether the selected position is identified by more intense illumination during periods of time when the ignition is not on.

The second issue I would like to note concerns the light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101. Automatic gear position displays are covered by that standard and must meet its requirements for, among other things, light intensity. An automatic gear display is a gauge. See section S4. Section S5.3.3 requires that light intensities for gauges and their identification be continuously variable from (a) a position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions to (b) a position providing illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. However, if the gauge is an informational readout display, section S5.3.3 only requires that it have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions.

Finally, I would note that incoming letters and attachments are routinely made public along with letters of interpretation. Since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, Confidential Business Information, which sets forth the agency's procedures concerning confidentiality. Please contact me if you wish to apply for confidential treatment for that drawing.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Miss Diane K. Steed Deputy Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 USA ESVG/My/u (453)

October 6, 1983 Subject: FMVSS 101 and 102; Interpretation

Dear Miss Steed,

In connection with FMVSS's Nos. 101 and 102 we kindly ask you for interpretation resp. clarification in view of the location and identification of the display of the automatic gear position and the shift lever itself.

Your early favourable consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated.

Yours truly,

Dr.Ing.h.c. F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft - Technical Administration-Mayer Enclosure

Request of Interpretation of Location and Identification

Requirements for the Automatic Gear Position Display and the Shift Lever of Automatic Transmissions

In S 5.1 of FMVSS 101 it is claimed that the displays shall be visible to the driver.

In S 5.2 of FMVSS 101 it is claimed that the identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies.

Column 3 of Table 2 of FMVSS 101 refers to FMVSS 102 with regard to the question of the identifying words or abbreviation and no symbol is included in column 4 of the said table (automatic gear position).

In FMVSS 102 under S 3.2 the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions is requested in connection with the instruction: "....shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver".

Our Questions are the following:

1) Is an advice of transmission shift lever sequence of an automatic transmission in a passenger car sufficient; as shown in annex 1 (*)? In this case all eligible positions are permanently in view of the driver and the selected position is identified through more intense illumination.

Is it admissible in this case that the shift lever which is mounted on the floor console has no identification?

(*) For presentation we had to use the instrument desired for the German market. Please neglect this fact as the third dial-plate to the left shows the US-speedometer version and includes the requested transmission sequence.

2) The shift lever for the automatic transmission is of course located within reach of the driver who is protected under FMVSS 208. What we would like to know is if Standard 101 or Standard 102 require that the shift lever has to be within a specific reaching distance to be operable by the driver while driving the vehicle, since FMVSS S.5.1 under article (j) refers only to manual transmission shift lever.

We would be very grateful to hear from you as soon as possible since we have stopped designing on this subject until we receive an answer from you.

Sincerely yours, Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG -Technical Administration- Mayer

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG Abt. ESV z. Hd. Herrn Mayer Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST-GERMAMY

ID: 1984-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Collier-Keyworth Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard L. Batt Chief Engineer, Juvenile Division Collier-Keyworth Company Gardner, Massachusetts 01440

Dear Mr. Batt:

This responds to your letter of June 19, 1984, asking how the requirements of section 5.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, apply to a sample child restraint belt buckle you provided the agency. You specifically asked whether the buckle would be considered a push button-release buckle or a lever-release buckle.

Your buckle would be considered a push button-release buckle since a person opens the buckle by pushing down on a specified surface. The lever-release buckle refers to a type of buckle which is opened by lifting a portion of the buckle. For example, the buckles found on airplane safety belts and some racing safety belts are lever-release buckles.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 19, 1984

Office of Chief Counsel Mr. Steve Kratzke National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20950

RE: Sample Buckle

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about a child restraint belt buckle.

Enclosed is a sample buckle that is only indicative of the design that we want to know about, and how it might be covered by the regulations imposed on child restraints. Please bear in mind that structural strength, corrosion resistance, and temperature resistance properties can all be addressed with alternatives to the materials that the sample buckle is made of.

What we really want to know is, does this design conform to the lever requirements of FMVSS 209? Will this design be considered to be a push button configuration, or will it be considered to be a lever configuration?

We need to know the proper designation in order to correctly design the physical shape of a newly proposed buckle.

I thank you.

Very truly yours,

COLLIER-KEYWORTH COMPANY

Richard L. Batt

Chief Engineer Juvenile Division RLB/dlc Enclosure

ID: 1984-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Alabama

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Teague State Superintendent of Education State of Alabama State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Dear Mr. Teague:

This responds to your June 27, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting information regarding the legal ramifications of converting school buses with gasoline or diesel fuel systems to propane or compressed natural gas fuel systems.

We are enclosing a copy of a letter that we sent on August 17, 1979, to Mr. Mike Champagne, which discusses the Federal requirements and implications of making such conversions of vehicle fuel systems. This letter should provide you with the information that you requested. You specifically asked about the possible liability in tort that the Department of Education may incur as a result of the conversion. We emphasize that the possibility of tortious liability, which is governed by State law, exists even where the modifications are made in compliance with the requirements of this agency. We suggest that you therefore discuss the matter of liability in tort with your insurance company and attorney.

You also asked whether there is an agency which can certify that the modified fuel system complies with a safety standard, thereby providing school systems and Department of Education with a defense in the event of a private lawsuit in tort. We are not aware of any Federal agency that provides this type of certification. You may want to consider having the modified fuel systems on your school buses tested by a private engineering or research facility to verify that the conversions were properly done.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

June 27, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. - NOA-30 U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

A variety of fuel alternatives is being offered by fuel innovators that will reduce gasoline fuel consumption or replace gasoline altogether. Some energy experts are calling for massive efforts on the part of industry and government to speed the development of the synthetic fuels industry to reduce the dependence on oil imports. However, even in light of all the research by government and private agencies, there are no Federal Department of Transportation Safety Standards relating directly to the use of propane or compressed natural gas on school buses. School buses powered by gasoline or diesel fuel are certified by the manufacturer as meeting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity.

Alabama's Minimum Specifications for School Buses require that school buses be certified by the manufacturer to the State Department of Education in the form of a certification plate mounted in the bus that states the vehicle is in compliance with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which include Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity.

It is the opinion of the Alabama State Department of Education that the safety inspection program conducted by the School Bus Equipment Inspectors approves the vehicle only as it relates to the original manufacturer's certification. Our questions are as follows: (1) If we allow the local school systems to remove the gasoline fuel system which is regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity and install a propane or compressed natural gas fuel system which is not regulated by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, would the State Department of Education be liable for any accident, injury, or death that may be caused by or related to the conversion? (2) Is there an agency which can certify that the fuel system, after conversion, meets a required safety standard that would protect the local school system and the State Department of Education from liability for any accident, injury, or death that may be caused by or related to the conversion?

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Wayne Teague State Superintendent of Education WT:nfd

ID: 1984-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Office of Public Instruction; Montana

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Terry Brown, Specialist Pupil Transportation Safety Office of Public Instruction State Capitol Helena, Montana 59620

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your March 12, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the use of ordinary passenger vehicles, vans, and motor coaches, as school buses. You posed three separate questions regarding school district liability when these vehicles are used to transport school children.

Your first question asked for information on school district liability when 9, 12, or 16 passenger vans which do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards are used to transport school children on activity trips. First, as you are probably aware, NHTSA does not hold schools responsible for operating noncomplying vehicles. Our enforcement authority is directed toward the vehicle manufacturer or the dealer that sells the noncomplying vehicle. Accordingly, there is no Federal prohibition against the operation by schools of noncomplying school buses. However, the laws of your state might not allow the use of such vehicles for the transportation of school children. Further, operation of noncomplying vehicles can pose insurance problems as qell as the possibility of private liability in the event that a child is injured in an accident involving one of those vehicles. You might want to discuss the issue of school district liability further with your insurance company and attorney.

Your first question can be restated to ask, "Do 9, 12, or 16 passenger vans which are used to transport school children on activity trips have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards?"

The floor debates on the Motor Vehicle Safety and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 show that Congress chose to specify a broad definition of school bus to include so-called "activity buses" in the definition. Therefore, activity buses are subject to the same Federal school bus safety standards which apply to buses that transport children to and from school.

A vehicle that is significantly used to transport school children to and from school and related events must be certified as complying with the school bus safety standards if the vehicle is a bus, and if the date of manufacture of that vehicle is after April 1, 1977. Under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.3, Definitions, a bus is defined as a motor vehicle (other than a trailer) designed for carrying more than 10 persons including the driver. Thus, a 9 passenger van would not be considered a bus nor a school bus under the Federal regulations. The school bus safety standards would not apply to such a vehicle. On the other hand, your 12 and 16 passenger vans are considered school buses since passenger capacity is above 10 persons.

Whether these 12 and 16 passenger vans must comply with the safety standards depends on the date of manufacture of those vehicles. The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which directed NHTSA to issue safety standards for new school vehicles, established the date on which the standards were to become effective. The comprehensive school bus safety standards became effective on April 1, 1977. If your 12 and 16 passenger vans were manufactured in or imported into this country on or after April 1, 1977, they must be certified as complying with the Federal school bus safety standards.

Your second question asked about school district liability when "regular or four-wheel drive suburbans (9 passenger)" are used to transport children to and from school. Again, the question we are addressing here is whether these vehicles must comply with the school bus safety standards. The answer to this question is no. A motor vehicle carrying 9 passengers is not considered a bus or a school bus under the Federal regulations.

Your third question asked, "What problems could school districts face when they use over-the-road coaches (greyhound types) to transport children on activity trips?" As discussed previously, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, together with the school bus safety standards, require that these buses be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are significantly used to transport school children to and from school-related events. Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such. Therefore, although NHTSA could not bring an enforcement action against a school using noncomplying school vehicles, a school district using a Greyhound-type motor coach may encounter problems obtaining insurance for its noncomplying vehicle. Further, the potential for private liability in the event of an accident involving one of these vehicles is very high.

If you have any further questions on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 12, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Bern Chief Council NHTSA NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Bern:

I am inquiring about material I have read recently about school bus safety. Particularly statements from your legal people about the use of vans and over-the-road coaches to haul school children.

State Superintendent Argenbright has asked that I contact you for some specific information about 1) school district liability when they use regular 9, 12 or 16 passenger vans to transport school children on activity trips, 2) the possible liability when they use regular or four-wheel drive suburbans (9 passenger) to transport children to and from school and, 3) what problems could school districts face when they use over-the-road coaches (greyhound types) to transport children on activity trips?

I am talking about the use of school vehicles that do not meet our state or national "school bus" standards.

Rather than sending just printed material, I would appreciate receiving written information from you or one of your staff members, concerning these issues.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Terry Brown, Specialist Pupil Transportation Safety

cc: Ed Argenbright