ID: nht92-7.6

DATE: May 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/8/90 from Jerry Ralph Curry (signed by Jeffrey R. Miller) to Robert J. Lagomarsino (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/31/91 from Paul J. Rice to Scott K. Hiler (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 11/3/88 from Erika Z. Jones (signed by Stephen P. Wood) to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 4/2/92 from Michael F. Hecker to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7174)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 2, 1992 concerning possible interpretations of section S5.1.4(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, as it applies to the R-BAR Passenger Restraint System (R-BAR). (While your letter refers to section S5.1.2(c), you clarified in a telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff that your concerns relate to section S5.1.4(c).) The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that Micho Industries believes that:

A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint.

B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222.

To support these statements you offer the following reasons:

1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure.

2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended.

3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.4(c)) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use.

The issue of whether Standard No. 222 is applicable to a device such as the R-BAR has been addressed previously by this agency. Enclosed are copies of four letters concerning similar devices (Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll, November 3, 1988, and March 10, 1989; The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, January 8, 1990; and Mr. Scott K. Hiler, January 31, 1991). Those letters make it clear that if a device such as the R-BAR is installed in any new school bus, the school bus manufacturer must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards with the device installed. The letters also make it clear that such devices may not legally be installed in used school buses by commercial establishments such as repair businesses if the effect of such installation is

to take the vehicle out of compliance with any safety standard.

With respect to your assertion that the R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that prescribe objective requirements. Under the Act, manufacturers must certify that their products comply with the requirements of all applicable standards and not merely with some alleged "intent" of a standard. Further, manufacturers may not certify products based on speculation that the agency would have established different requirements had it known of a particular design.

With regard to your specific concerns about S5.1.4(c), that section states that when a seat back is subjected to a specified force, "(t)he seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another passenger seat in its originally installed position." In the enclosed letter to Mr. Hiler, the agency stated that "once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback." Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4.(c)

Section S5.1.4(c)'s requirements are not limited to rigid components of a seat, and therefore the fact that the R-BAR is not a fixed position device is not relevant to the applicability of those requirements. With respect to your argument that the device will move upward and away in the event of a rear impact, Standard No. 222 sets forth a specific test procedure for the requirement specified in S5.1.4(c). Manufacturers are required to certify that a vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.14

DATE: February 11, 1992

FROM: Lance Watt -- Director of Engineering, The Flxible Corporation

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Paul J. Rice to Lance Watt (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Flxible Corporation is a major domestic manufacturer of city transit buses and requests an interpretation concerning FMVSS 108, "Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment," while also referencing FMVSS 121 "Air Brake Systems."

An air brake system is used on our vehicles. As the driver starts to apply the service brake pedal to slow or stop the vehicle, a service brake stop lamp switch is activated. The stop lamp switch is installed to comply with Section S5.1.7 of FMVSS 121, "Air Brake Systems." The stop lamps are in turn activated by the stop lamp switch.

The Flxible Corporation offers optional transmissions which have internal hydraulic retarders for supplemental braking as a means to increase brake lining life. This retardation deceleration would be over and above that obtained by the normal service brake system. In our current design, the transmission retarder is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn triggers the stop lamp switch which in turn illuminates the stop lamps.

The Flxible Corporation has received requests from customers to activate the transmission retarder when the ACCELERATOR pedal is released. In this scenario, the service BRAKE pedal would not be used to activate the transmission retarder. However, if required, the driver could also depress the brake pedal to in turn activate the service brakes in order to achieve an even higher rate of vehicle deceleration over and above that obtained by the transmission retarder itself.

If the brake pedal were not depressed however, and with the vehicle deceleration caused solely by transmission retardation, the stop lamps would not be illuminated and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed.

Some of our customers have also requested to have the transmission retarder activate the stop lamps to provide following vehicles with a warning that a sudden reduction in vehicle speed was in progress, even though it was caused by the transmission retarder as opposed to a service brake application. Again, this application of the stop lamps would be achieved by release of the accelerator and without depressing the brake pedal, and potentially without any intent to apply the service brakes on the part of the driver.

Section S5.5.4 states: "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." This is interpreted by Flxible to mean the brake pedal would activate the service brakes which would activate the stop

lamp switch which in turn would activate the stop lights. By virtue of our customer's requests, the stop lamps would already be activated when the driver released the accelerator pedal and without any application of the brake pedal.

Flxible has in the past requested a NHTSA ruling on a further scenario outside of that, but somewhat related to that which is described here-in. Please find attached a copy of that request along with a copy of your response for reference.

Additionally, some of our customers, especially those in locations likely to experience icy or slippery road conditions, request a retarder cut off switch in order to disable the retarder and reduce the possibility of uncontrolled drive axle wheel lock-up. In cases such as this, without a dual system that would then allow stop light switch and stop light activation to be caused by application of the brake pedal as in our standard system today, a stop light activation would occur at the time of accelerator release with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes.

Flxible to date has resisted the customer requests as noted, however, these customers, without a specific NHTSA ruling on the request as stated above, threaten to declare Flxible a non responsive bidder on transit bus procurements. The basis of their complaints or requests in this regard stem from the fact that they require operating standardization across their various manufacturer fleets to prevent operator error or confusion.

A ruling is requested on whether a non-compliance with Section S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 would result, if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers.

Flxible appreciates the opportunity to petition for a ruling in this complex matter so that we may use your response accordingly in responding, to our customer's requests.

Should you desire any further clarification or information on this subject, please feel free to contact the writer at (614) 362-2730.

ID: aiam4288

Dear Mr. Ziwica: This letter concerns your request for an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, as it applies to the antitheft device BMW intends to install on the Carline 7 passenger car line for model year 1988. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.; On October 9, 1986, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Registe granting BMW's petition for an exemption from the marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard, based on its determination that an effective antitheft device will be installed on those lines as standard equipment. (51 FR 3633.) However, because NHTSA wished to further consider the compliance of the double- lock aspect of the central locking system with Standard No. 206, we granted the petition while reserving decision on that issue. We have completed our evaluation of the double-lock system and have determined it is permitted by the standard.; In its petition for exemption from the marking requirements of th Theft Prevention Standard, BMW described an antitheft device which, among other things, prevents entry into the vehicle by affecting the door locks in the following manner:; >>>The inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical plunge on each door, and the plungers on the front doors override the two rear door plungers. To prevent locking the keys in the car upon exiting, the front doors can only be locked with a key. For Convenience, this also locks all other doors, if they are open at the time of locking, they lock when closed.<<<; >>>The locks in the front doors have three-positions cylinders - off 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees and removed from the lock, the doors, trunk and gas filler door are locked. If, however, the key is rotated 90 degrees and removed, the car's burglar alarm is armed and the doors are 'double locked', after the plungers move downward, the central locking system is deactivated and the door locks are mechanically inhibited. Thus locked, neither an outside nor inside handle, nor a locking plunger can be used to unlock a door - the doors can only be unlocked and the alarm disarmed using a key in a front door lock... Disconnecting the battery does not unlock the doors or change the 'double locked' mode... In the event of an accident, an inertia switch automatically unlocks all doors.<<<; The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows: >>>S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a lockin mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism i engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpos passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.<<<; The standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door loc requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.; Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1. through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the operating means to disengage requisite door locking mechanisms. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past NHTSA interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only additional locking systems which interfere with the capability of the operating means to *engage* the locking system required by the standard. Since, according to your letter of September 24, 1986, BMW's double-lock feature does not interfere with the interior operating means' engagement of the required door locks, the secondary locking system is permitted.; The answer to your question about the double lock system is dependen on whether the system interferes with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 of the standard are written in terms of what must occur when the required locking system is engaged and impose no requirements for the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of *engaging* the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is *engaged.* Since we have determined that S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks, we conclude that the required aspect of performance in S4.1.3 for door locking mechanisms is that the interior operating means be capable only of engaging the locks. We thus conclude that the standard permits an additional door locking device which might interfere with the disengagement of the required locking system. The additional system, however, must *not* interfere with the capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks.; In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 20 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to 'minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.' Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibit a device which negates the capability of the inside operating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.; This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies pas agency statements on issues raised by secondary locking systems. To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations issued in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4524

"Dear Mr. Reeser: I am writing in response to your December 4, 198 letter in which you described Caterpillar Inc.'s worldwide program to review lighting used on Caterpillar product lines in order to standardize the devices. You specifically asked if any of Caterpillar's lighting devices were covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108. You enclosed descriptive literature on the Caterpillar product line. I regret the delay in responding to your question. It must be noted at the outset that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for 'motor vehicles.' Therefore, Standard 108 and all of our other regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a 'motor vehicle' under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 102(3) of the Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., Airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. As noted above, this agency has consistently interpreted 'motor vehicle' to exclude vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel. Therefore, the track-type tractors, excavators, track-type loaders, tracked pavement profilers PR-450, PR-750B and PR-1000, concrete slipform pavers & auxiliary equipment, finegraders, front shovels, swing machines, tracked skidders D4H and D5H are not considered to be 'motor vehicles.' In your letter, you described the Caterpillar line of construction and industrial equipment as basically for off-highway use: 'There are occasional uses on the highway for such equipment as motor graders, but obviously none of this equipment is designed for normal highway use or for the transportation of people.' Despite their use of the highway, some vehicles are excepted from the motor vehicle classification. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered 'motor vehicles.' Although many items in the Caterpillar product line have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, the product literature enclosed with your letter did not provide sufficient information on the maximum speed capabilities or intended uses (i.e., strictly off highway or occasional on-highway use) of the motor graders, off-highway tractors, articulated dump trucks, wheel tractors, compactors, landfill compactors, wheel loaders, integrated toolcarriers, backhoe loaders, pavement profilers PR-75, PR-105 and PR-275, asphalt pavers & auxiliary equipment, compaction equipment, skidders, pipelayers, scrapers, and off-highway trucks to enable me to make a determination whether these would be considered 'motor vehicles.' However, I believe that the guidelines for classifying vehicles that are set forth above will allow you to determine if these are 'motor vehicles.' If they are, they must comply with safety standards, including Standard 108, applicable to trucks. The lighting devices and other features of 'motor vehicles' would be required to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 571). As you are aware, Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108) specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment necessary for signaling andfor the safe operation of motor vehicles during darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility. Finally, the product literature included several items which did not appear to be self-propelling, including the asphalt drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment items TSF-54 and TSM-54. These products fall within NHTSA's jurisdiction if they are 'trailers' as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. That section defines 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' Based on the depiction in the brochure, the equipment appear to be designed for carrying property (drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment) and for being drawn by another vehicle. Therefore, whether the equipment are trailers depends on whether they are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act and on whether the vehicles the equipment are designed to be drawn by are 'motor vehicles.' Specific information has not been provided about the intended uses of the equipment. If they make frequent use of the highways, and stay at one particular job site for a limited amount of time, the items mentioned above would be motor vehicles, and would fall within the definition of 'trailers.' Trailers are subject to Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If, on the other hand, the equipment are intended to be drawn by vehicles that are not motor vehicles, or the equipment stays at a job site for extended periods of time and it travels on the highways only to move to another job site for an extended stay, the equipment would not be considered motor vehicles. It is important to note that NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self certification' process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product. I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Caterpillar, Inc. If there are any further questions or if you need further information, please do not hesitate to write to me. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5171

"Dear Mr. Dittert: This responds to your inquiry about how the Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affect State laws applicable to the same aspect of performance. You were particularly interested in our requirements for window tinting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard 205, 'Glazing Materials,' issued under the Safety Act, has requirements that limit the amount of tinting that can be placed on windows in new vehicles. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, no person shall manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety- related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. The prohibition in 108(a)(1)(A) against selling complying vehicles and items of equipment does not apply to a vehicle or item of equipment after its first sale to a consumer. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies to modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. I would now like to apply this background to the particular questions raised in your letter. Question One: 'Are the CFRs law and enforceable only by federal agents?' NHTSA's regulations and safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations and standards apply without State ratification to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces these regulations and safety standards. Question Two: 'Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?' The FMVSS's apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and not to used vehicles or equipment. NHTSA may bring enforcement actions against manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of equipment that do not comply with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA also enforces the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act against commercial entitites that modify new or used vehicles in a manner that violates the 'render inoperative' provision. We also note that NHTSA can investigate safety defects in new or used vehicles or items of equipment. Question Three: 'Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFRs?' We understand you to ask this in the context of window tinting requirements, since elsewhere in your letter you ask whether a Texas law that allows light transmittance of 35 percent violates Federal law. Your question relates to 103(d) of the Safety Act, which states: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... 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. Whether State law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205. As stated above, Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses (108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act). The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law. Question 4: 'Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp `black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?' You are correct that 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act regulates the modifications of only the commercial entities listed in that section of the Act, and that the Safety Act does not prohibit an individual from modifying his or her vehicle such that it no longer complies with the FMVSS's. The States may have requirements governing the modification of a vehicle by individual owners. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4500

"Dear Ms. Gelburd: This is a response to your letter of January 12 1988, asking for NHTSA's evaluation of your client's product intended for use with an add-on child restraint system to 'cushion and insulate the child.' The product, a sample of which was enclosed with your letter, is a fabric-covered rectangular seat-pad about 1/2 inch thick, surrounded at the top and both legs by a fabric-covered cushion. The product has a crotch-strap in the front, through which is inserted a belt that anchors on the legs of the rectangle. On the back of this product are two clips apparently to be used for anchoring the seat pad to the child restraint system. You asked generally whether this product will 'contravene or compromise' Federal safety standards, particularly Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). Additionally, you asked us to 'determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within (NHTSA's) jurisdiction.' Your client's product falls within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' as that term is defined in 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). Section 102(4) defines 'motor vehicle equipment' as: ...any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle. In determining whether an item is an 'accessory,' the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to your client's seat-pad, we conclude that the seat-pad has no purpose other than use with a child restraint system and that it is intended to be used principally by consumers. Thus, the seat-pad would be an 'accessory,' and, therefore, is 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. The Vehicle Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard 213, which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your client's seat-pad. Hence, your client is not required to certify that this product complies with that standard before selling the seat-pad. Although Standard 213 does not directly apply to your client's product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard... There is an element of design incorporated in a child restraint system that may be affected by installing Hasbro's seat-pad. Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See 49 CFR 571.213, S7, referencing 49 CFR 571.302, S4. For your information, I enclose a copy of 571.302.) If installing this seat-pad would denigrate the flammability resistance attributes of the child restraint system, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would 'render inoperative' a design element installed in the child restraint system in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each 108 violation on each child restraint system where this design element was 'rendered inoperative.' Second, your client should know that it will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if it offers this product for sale. As a manufacturer, your client will be subject to the requirements of 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If your client or the agency determined that this seat-pad had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your client would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either: 1. repair the seat-pad so that the defect is removed, or 2. replace the seat-pad with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect. Your client, as the manufacturer, would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. Except in the context of a defect proceeding, the agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects. Therefore, we are unable to say whether your client's seat-pad might contain such a defect. However, I wish to express my concern with one aspect of this product. The cushion that surrounds the seat pad is uninterrupted, and seems to have no provision for passing the child restraint system belt around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would render inoperative a Federally required element of design that applies to child restraint systems. That kind of action would violate 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1000.00 for each violation. Further, the seat pad has a crotch and lap belt assembly. I think it is possible that some parents may use the belt assembly on the seat-pad as a lap restraint for restraining a child's lower torso. Given that your client's seat-pad has a belt configuration similar to that which a user might expect to see in a child restraint with a crotch strap and lap belt assembly, parents may assume that the belt meets the performance requirements that apply to belts installed on child restraint systems. For example, a nonmetallic belt buckle (such as the buckle on the Hasbro sample) in a child restraint system must meet the temperature resistant specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials 'Standard Practice for Determination of Weight and Shape Changes in Plastic,' D756-78. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.2.) There are load requirements for both the buckle assembly and the webbing in a lap belt restraint system. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.1.) There are several other performance requirements in Standards 209 and 213 applicable to belts, buckles, and materials used on belts installed in child restraint systems. I am sure that your client will want to minimize the chances of a parent mistakenly using the seat-pad belt assembly as a torso restraint. Hasbro may choose to alert parents not to misuse the belt on the seat-pad. One possible means of alerting parents would be to affix a 'warning label' to the product. Please understand that this explanation is not an agency 'recommendation'. NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When a potential motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer presents us with questions concerning a product, we use the information presented to explain how our statute and regulations may apply to such products. It is up to the manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4431

"Dear Mr. Kato: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1988 concerning whether a Mitsubishi Motors Corporation SH27 lightweight industrial truck that you intend to offer for sale in the United States should be classified as a motor vehicle under Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act'). You stated that this vehicle is intended for 'general or carrier work for off-road applications,' and that it is capable of a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. You further explained that your company planned to advertise, promote, and market this vehicle as an off-road vehicle. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the SH27 would not be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle'. Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated. Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks, can be registered for use on the highways of several foreign countries, and can obtain a a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. These factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you stated that this vehicle is intended to be used only for off-road applications and that this vehicle will be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only and will contain four warning labels stating 'Warning: Off Road Use Only.' These factors suggest that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle. In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are: 1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. You noted that several foreign countries including Japan and Taiwan register for on-road use the general export configuration of this vehicle. This suggests that your vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle. You attempted to distinguish this fact by stating that the vehicle to be sold in the United States has different specifications than the general export vehicles. The differences are that the United States version has a maximum speed of 25 mph while the general export version can achieve speeds of greater than 55 mph, the engine displacement in the United States version has an engine of 548 cc rather than the 796 and 783 cc for the general export version, and the United States version has an hourmeter (similar to agricultural vehicles) rather than a speedometer. You stated that these differences mean that there is little basis for assuming that the experience in other countries would correlate to the likelihood of States permitting the vehicle to be registered for highway use in the United States. Since the vehicle closely resembles a small truck for highway use, we believe it is likely that States would permit it to be registered for highway use, just as other countries have. Therefore, this factor suggests that your vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle. 2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. You stated that your advertising and promotional materials will state that your vehicle should be used only for off-road purposes and will not depict or suggest that the vehicle can be used on-road. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle. 3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. You stated that your dealers will be instructed that this vehicle is to be used solely for off-road purposes and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in this country. Your company also will state on any ownership document that this vehicle is not intended for on-road use. Therefore, this factor would indicate that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle. 4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. You stated that this vehicle will only be sold by dealerships that sell vehicles other than motor vehicles, such as material handling equipment like lifts and agricultural equipment. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle. 5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. You stated that four warning labels will be affixed to the interior and exterior of the vehicle body. Labels stating 'Off Road Use Only' will be applied to the exterior front panel of the cab, the rear gate, and the instrument panel. Additionally, a label stating 'Warning: Off Road Use Only' will be affixed to the exterior rear panel of the cab. This factor would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle. Based on the representations in your letter, the agency believes that the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight truck does not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel /";

ID: aiam4495

"Dear Mr. Nash: This responds to your letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and follows up on the April 1, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff in which additional information augmenting your letter was provided. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you said that you are refurbishing a type of passenger vehicle that was first produced 20 years ago. Your letter raises questions about Federal requirements for persons modifying used vehicles which I will address in the latter part of this letter and about Federal requirements for the design of the vehicle's chassis. Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that the manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the defect free of charge. It is not clear from the information which you have provided us whether the vehicle you are refurbishing would be treated as a new or used vehicle under the Safety Act. A vehicle with a new body and new chassis would be a new vehicle required to meet the standards in effect on the day that manufacture of the vehicle is completed. A vehicle with a new body and old chassis would be a used vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., persons holding themselves out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that any person in the above categories modifying a new or used vehicle must do so in a manner that ensures the continued compliance of the vehicle with applicable safety standards. This prohibition affects vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, l968, the date on which the first Federal safety standards became effective. For instance, a commercial business that installs a new fuel system in a passenger car manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of Standard No. 301) must ensure that the new system at least meets the level of safety performance required of the fuel system originally installed on the vehicle. Persons violating section 108 are subject to potential civil penalties of $1,000 per violation. In instances in which a new vehicle body is installed on an old chassis, section 108(a)(2)(A) requires that the reassembled vehicle meet the Federal safety standards that had been in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle. I have enclosed a copy of a January 14, 1976 letter to Mr. Tom Welland that describes generally the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to refurbished motor vehicles. Please note that the first situation referred to in the Welland letter addresses the modification of a vehicle by its owner. The prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. I will now address the questions you expressly posed in your letter. Your first three questions asked: What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of a passenger-carrying motor vehicle? What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger-carrying motor vehicle chassis? What form or test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations? As Ms. Hom informed you, our safety standards apply to new vehicles and are performance-oriented. NHTSA has not issued any design specifications that directly establish minimum static or dynamic loads for vehicle chassis. These design parameters are established by the manufacturer independently of specific criteria set by the agency and might be available from the original manufacturer of the vehicle you are refurbishing. However, manufacturers of new vehicles are required by NHTSA to determine and specify the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings of their vehicles in the manner set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 of our regulations. I have enclosed a copy of Part 567 for your information. Chassis manufacturers must be aware, however, of the following two considerations relating to the static and dynamic load capacities of vehicles and NHTSA's regulations. First, because manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that their vehicles will perform to the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, manufacturers must ensure that chassis design is compatible with the vehicle's ability to comply. Some of our safety standards specify that the performance of requisite vehicle safety systems will be evaluated in dynamic (i.e., crash) tests which enable the agency to evaluate the synergistic effect of a range of variables on a vehicle's compliance therewith. Manufacturers of new vehicles would therefore have to ensure that the design of the chassis will have no negative effect on their vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. Second, as mentioned above, NHTSA has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and to require manufacturers to recall and remedy such defects free of charge. Chassis manufacturers must therefore ensure that their products contain no safety related defects, which might well include a chassis member that is incapable of carrying loads for which it is intended. Further, the vehicle manufacturer who provides the GVWR and GAWR information required by Part 567 must ensure that the information relating to the chassis static loads is correct. On a separate matter, your letter also asked about the requirements manufacturers must meet when installing a plastic fuel tank in a motor vehicle. The standard we issued for vehicle fuel system integrity (No. 301) sets performance requirements for fuel systems in new motor vehicles. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) specifies the test that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the requisite safety system (e.g., the fuel system) on new vehicles selected for inclusion in its compliance test program. Manufacturers are not bound, however, to use the tests specified in the safety standards for evaluating the compliance of their vehicles or equipment with our standards. Instead, a manufacturer may test in any manner it chooses, so long as it can show that it has exercised due care in ensuring that its vehicles or items of equipment comply with the applicable Federal requirements. In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed information that provides an overview of Federal requirements applying to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and instructions on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4349

Dear Mr. Negro: This is in response to Mr. Rossi's request for an interpretation of th Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541), which he asked that I direct to you. That standard requires that certain parts of high-theft carlines, including the engine and transmission, be marked with the vehicle identification number, if the part is an original equipment part, or with the letter 'R' and the manufacturer's trademark, if the part is a replacement part. Mr. Rossi stated that it is occasionally necessary to remove the original equipment engine or transmission from one of these cars and install a replacement engine or transmission in the car. The original equipment engine and/or transmission is then sent to the factory to be repaired and reconditioned. Following such repair, the engine and/or transmission is then put into the replacement parts network.; Mr. Rossi stated his belief that the original equipment part shoul have the original equipment identification removed and a replacement marking put onto the part. He then asked whether Ferrari was required to remove the footprint left by the original equipment identification marking or if that should be left on the part. The answer is that Ferrari and all other reconditioners are *not* permitted to remove from any reconditioned part the original equipment identification marking inscribed or affixed to the part in compliance with Part 541. Further, reconditioners are not required to inscribe or affix any additional markings to parts they have reconditioned. Title II of the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-547, the Theft Act) includes a provision that addresses this question. This section (18. U.S.C. 511) reads as follows:; S511. *Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers* >>>(a) Whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alter an identification number for a motor vehicle, or motor vehicle part, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.; (b)(1) Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a removal obliteration, tampering, or alteration by a person specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection (unless such person knows that the vehicle or part involved is stolen).; (2) The persons referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection are - (A) a motor vehicle scrap processor or a motor vehicle demolisher who complies with applicable State law with respect to such vehicle or part, (B) a person who repairs such vehicle or part, if the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair, and (C) a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle or part in accordance with applicable State law.<<<; None of the exceptions set forth in 18 U.S.C. 511(b)(2) would permi Ferrari to routinely remove original equipment markings from reconditioned engines and transmissions. The first exception is not applicable, since Ferrari is clearly not a motor vehicle scrap processor or demolisher. The second exception would be applicable only in rare instances, since it is not usually necessary to remove the original equipment identification marking in order to recondition engines or transmissions. The third exception was explained as follows in the House Report on the Theft Act (H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 24 (1984)): 'The exemption also applies to persons acting under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation or State law to restore or replace such markings.' For the policy reasons discussed below, we will not give reconditioners authority to routinely remove original equipment identification markings from engines and transmissions. Assuming Ferrari does not have authority under applicable State law to remove such markings, the third exception does not apply to Ferrari when it is reconditioning engines and transmissions.; If reconditioners of engines and transmissions were allowed t routinely remove the original equipment identification markings, the law enforcement purposes of the Theft Act would be seriously undermined. In response to some comments received on the proposed Part 541, a new S541.6(b) was added to the final rule. This section expressly prohibits covered major parts from being marked as both original equipment and replacement parts. The preamble to the final rule explained the reasons for prohibiting such 'dual markings' as follows:; >>>Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stole original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. Once the original equipment identification (the VIN) had been obliterated from those stolen parts, a legitimate replacement part marking would remain. Assuming that the obliteration of the VIN were performed reasonably proficiently, repair shops and investigators would have little reason to suspect that this part was anything other than a properly identified replacement part. 50 FR 43178, October 24, 1985.<<<; These same law enforcement concerns would arise if Ferrari were t remove the VIN markings from its reconditioned engines and transmissions. If those parts were marked as both original equipment and replacement parts, the problems associated with dual markings would arise. If, on the other hand, Ferrari were to try to obliterate the footprint from the original equipment, law enforcement officials would have no means of distinguishing engines Ferrari had reconditioned from stolen engines on which thieves had obliterated the original equipment marking and added a counterfeit replacement marking. In either case, it would cause confusion and uncertainty for law enforcement officials if Ferrari and the large number of other reconditioners were legitimately and routinely to remove the original equipment identification from reconditioned parts and add a replacement part marking to those parts.; Indeed, such action by reconditioners would serve to defeat the purpos of the Theft Act, which was to 'decrease the ease with which stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced.' If reconditioners routinely removed the original equipment markings from the engines and transmissions they reconditioned, car thieves could also remove those original equipment markings with impunity. If the thieves were ever questioned by law enforcement officials about the obliterated original equipment marking, they could respond that the marking must have been obliterated during reconditioning. If obliterated original equipment markings on parts do not provide law enforcement officials with evidence of illegal activity, there would seem to be no reason to require the original equipment markings on the parts.; Further, a requirement that all persons reconditioning engines an transmissions obliterate the original equipment marking and add a replacement part marking would impose significant additional costs and burdens on those persons. This would be inconsistent with the Theft Act's stated purpose of minimizing regulation of the aftermarket motor vehicle industry.; All of these potential problems can be avoided if reconditioners simpl leave the original equipment marking on the parts after reconditioning. When those markings are left in place by reconditioners, thieves cannot claim that an engine or transmission that has a 'footprint' in the area where the original equipment identification is placed is just a reconditioned part. Instead, the 'footprint' would alert law enforcement officials to the likelihood that the original equipment marking had been unlawfully removed from the part. Further, no burdens are imposed on reconditioners if they must leave the original equipment markings in place and are not required to add any markings of their own. Therefore, we conclude that the Theft Act and Part 541 require that businesses that recondition any major parts required to be marked pursuant to Part 541 leave those markings in place on the reconditioned parts. Part 541 does not require reconditioners to add any further identification markings to these parts.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4160

Dear Mr. Anderson: Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from Congressma Howard Wolpe who contacted you on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Dennis D. Furr of Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Furr wrote to Congressman Wolpe with several questions pertaining to the regulations we administer for school buses. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Mr. Furr's concerns regarding school bus safety.; I would like to begin with some background discussion of our school bu regulations. Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses that were issued separately under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('the Vehicle Safety Act') and the Highway Safety Act. The first set, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems and occupant crash protection, rollover protection, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977 and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each person manufacturing or selling new buses must ensure that the vehicles comply with our school bus safety standards if intended for school use.; Some of Mr. Furr's concerns involve one of our school bus safet standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Mr. Furr believes that some State laws permit excessive numbers of children to be transported in school buses which he contends can result in unsafe seating configurations (such as a row of bench seats with one inch of aisle space). He suggests revising Standard No. 222 to require a 'three-two seating arrangement,' which we assume refers to school bus seat design and positioning.; We believe that an amendment to Standard No. 222 along the line suggested by Mr. Furr is not warranted. We are not aware of any data indicating that there is a safety problem with current school bus seating configurations or that manufacturers are or have been placing bench seats in a manner that prevents or impedes access through school bus aisles. In accordance with current requirements of Standard No. 222, manufacturers must provide high levels of crash protection for each designated seating position in their school buses, regardless of the configuration of a vehicle's seating. School bus seats are also subject to requirements ensuring access to school bus exits. The possibility that a State might permit loading school buses over the vehicles' rated seating capacity would not affect the manufacturers' and sellers' responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that their school buses comply with this and other applicable safety standards.; As to Mr. Furr's concerns about school bus seat dimensions, please se the enclosed copy of a letter sent by NHTSA to Senator Donald Riegle, Jr., who contacted us with a similar inquiry on Mr. Furr's behalf regarding Standard No. 222's requirements for seat configuration.; The second suggestion from Mr. Furr was to amend Standard No. 222 t require safety belts for school bus passengers. Standard No. 222 currently does not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds) because large school buses are already required to provide high levels of protection to passengers through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.; Since large school buses already offer substantial protection t passengers, we believe that a safety standard requiring safety belts in those buses is not warranted at this time. However, we do not prevent State and local governments from ordering safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so. Most school bus manufacturers are capable of installing them in new school buses.; Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed i NHTSA's publication entitled, 'Safety Belts in School Buses,' (June 1985). I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.; It appears from Mr. Furr's several suggestions for amending Standar No. 222 that his primary concern is with State regulations specifying how many children are permitted to be carried on school buses. It might be helpful to keep in mind a distinction between performance requirements, which apply to school bus manufacturers and sellers and are set by NHTSA, and operational requirements for school buses, which apply to bus users and are set by the States. We have recommendations for school vehicle use requirements, which I will discuss below in connection with the balance of Mr. Furr's letter.; Mr. Furr's other questions relate to the second set of regulations w issued for school buses under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. Those regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, comprise recommendations for operating school buses and apply to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), which Mr. Furr references, includes recommendations that States provide seating accommodations of minimum specified dimensions for each school bus occupant and that States coordinate seating plans to eliminate standees. Each state determines how it will include Program Standard No. 17's guidelines in its highway safety program, and this agency does not insist on adoption of the standard.; Mr. Furr asks about Michigan's implementation of Program Standard No 17. Since Michigan state officials have informed him that the State has chosen not to adopt the standard, Mr. Furr asks if Michigan has either disregarded Federal funds or has accepted Federal funding and neglected to comply with Program Standard No. 17.; The answer to both of those questions is no. NHTSA administers annuall highway safety grant funds to the States to enable States to establish and implement their highway safety programs in accordance with the program standards we issued. In qualifying for Federal funding under our grant program, States are given discretion about adopting Program Standard No. 17. Michigan is thus not subject to sanctions for receiving Federal funding for its highway safety program in the absence of its implementation of that standard.; In a related comment, Mr. Furr suggested NHTSA withhold highway safet funds to any State that does not require the use of safety belts on school buses. As explained above, NHTSA's funding program for highway safety programs does not penalize States for implementing Standard No. 17 in the manner in which they have chosen. Further, it would be inappropriate for NHTSA to impose sanctions against States that do not require safety belts on large school buses since we do not believe safety belts for passengers on those vehicles are necessary at this time.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have any further questions.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed