ID: 1985-01.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Neal McCormick -- Senior Consultant Transportation, Colorado Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/2/84 letter from Diane K. Steed to Jim Burnett, Chairman, NTSB

TEXT: This responds to your November 21, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to school buses. Our answers follow your specific questions which we have restated below.

1. Do the Federal school bus standards in fact preclude a school district from transporting pupils in vehicles not meeting all school bus standards?

To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect a school district's choice of buses. The first of these are the motor vehicle safety standards to which you refer in your letter. These safety standards were issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) and apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If a school district plans to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. The Federal sanctions are directed against the dealer or manufacturer who sells a new noncomplying bus to a school for school use. Strictly speaking, a school district is not prohibited by our school bus safety standards from operating a noncomplying school bus.

There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if Colorado has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked "School Bus." Therefore, although the Vehicle Safety Act would not prevent a school district from operating a noncomplying school bus, HSPS 17 might affect your school districts if Colorado has adopted it and if Colorado accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. I have enclosed a copy of HSPS 17 that was photocopied from volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1204.4, as requested by your associate, Mr. Joseph Marchese.

If Colorado chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

Having said this, however, I would like to restate the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. Such a bus has safety features such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. These are features that school districts should consider when deciding to purchase their school vehicles.

2. May a state set out definitions of vehicles (for transportation of pupils) which do not meet all applicable school bus standards? If not, what penalties may be applied?

Our Federal motor vehicle safety regulations define a bus as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus as a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of a State not to adopt the Federal classification has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no State shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.

The preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact that a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. A State decision to adopt all or none of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle in accordance with the Federal standards.

3. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle not meeting all applicable school bus safety standards and uses it for transporting pupils, what penalties may be applied? Would such penalties apply if the vehicle is used for "activity" transportation only?

As we explained above, the school district that purchases and uses a noncomplying school bus would not be subject to Federal sanctions under the Vehicle Safety Act. It is only illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to sell such a vehicle to a school knowing that the school will use it to transport students. Any person selling new vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Vehicle Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $ 1,000 per violation. Further, in regard to the second part of this question, the answer is yes. The penalties would apply to a person selling a new bus to a school for school related activity trips if that bus is not certified to the Federal safety standards.

You should note that although a school district would not be subject to Federal sanctions under the Safety Act for buying and using a noncomplying bus, using such a vehicle as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

4. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle meeting all applicable school bus standards and modifies such a vehicle, is there a penalty? For example, replacement of 222 seating with seats not in compliance with the 222 standards.

The answer is no. Nothing in the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicles. However, the Act does prohibit dealers, manufacturers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The school can replace the seats of the original school bus with seats that do not comply with FMVSS No. 222 if it so desires. As we pointed out above, the school could be subject to increased liability in case of an accident. We suggest that you discuss this matter with your attorney or insurance company.

5. Is NHTSA at present considering any amendments to the existing standards for school buses? Also, are any additional standards likely to be promulgated within the next year?

Our agency has recently received a petition for rulemaking requesting that FMVSS No. 222 be amended to set certain specifications for seat belt performance on large school buses if seat belts are voluntarily installed on these vehicles. The decision to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking will be made by NHTSA in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

6. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has set out several recommendations for "activity" buses. Does NHTSA concur in these recommendations? (These refer to certification/training of mechanics, etc.)

Enclosed is a copy of a November 2, 1984 letter from NHTSA's Administrator, Diane K. Steed, to Chairman Burnett of the National Transportation Safety Board, which comments on several recommendations NTSB made regarding school bus repairs, certification of mechanics, instruction on emergency equipment use, et cetera. I believe this letter will discuss your concerns thoroughly.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

ENCLS.

[See 11/2/84 letter from Diane K. Steed to Jim Burnett, Chairman, NTSB] COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

November 21, 1984

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel NHTSA -- USDOT

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter concerns Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly those applicable to school buses; of special interest are Nos. 217, 220, 221, and 222. Your answers will be of special interest to this state; in addition, copies will be provided to State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services per a request at the annual meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on November 5.

The standards appear to preclude a school agency from acquiring any vehicle, other than one meeting all applicable school bus standards, for the transportation of pupils to/from school or school related events. Following are specific questions in this regard:

1. Do the above standards in fact preclude a school district from transporting pupils in vehicles not meeting all school bus standards?

2. May a state set out definition(s) of vehicles (for transportation of pupils) which do not meet all applicable school bus standards? If not, what penalties may be applied?

3. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle not meeting all applicable school bus standards, and uses it for transporting pupils, what penalties may be applied? Would such penalty (if any) apply if the vehicle is used for "activity" transportation only?

4. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle meeting all applicable school bus standards and modifies such vehicle (in a category governed by one of the above standards) is there a penalty? For example, replacement of 222 seating with seats not in compliance with the 222 standards.

5. Is NHTSA at present considering any amendments to the existing standards for school buses? Also, are any additional standards likely to be promulgated within the next year?

6. The National Transportation Safety Board has set out several recommendations for "activity" buses; does NHTSA concur in these recommendations? (These refer to certification/training of mechanics, etc.)

Thank you for any consideration.

Neal McCormick Senior Consultant Transportation

CC: PAUL STEWART -- WEST VA. DEPT. OF EDUCATION; ROY G. BRUBACHER -- COLORADO DEPT. OF EDUCATION; DANIEL G. WISOTZKEY -- COLORADO DEPT. OF EDUCATION

ID: 1985-01.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William G. Hilton -- Manager, Vehicle Standards Technical Development Section Transportation and Safety Building (Harrisburg, PA)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William G. Hilton, Manager Vehicle Standards Technical Development Section Transportation and Safety Building, Room 407 Harrisburg, PA 17123

Dear Mr. Hilton:

I am writing to you at the request of Mr. John Patchuka, Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor Vehicles, concerning the effect of Federal law and regulations on small vans that are being used to transport school children in Pennsylvania. Mr. Patchuka's letter to me included several letters and memoranda from Pennsylvania officials, to which I will refer from time to time in my reply.

Briefly stated, it is my opinion that any van with seats for more than ten persons that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events must comply with tha standards for school buses issued by this agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-565 (hereafter, the Vehicle Safety Act). These standards include requirements for school bus lights and for mirrors. It is my further opinion that if the highway safety program standard on pupil transportation safety issued by this agency under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-564 (hereafter, the Highway Safety Act) were to be fully incorporated into Pennsylvania law, a van required to be equipped with school bus lights and mirrors would also have to comply with the painting and marking requirements for Type I school bus vehicles under that standard.

I believe that much of the confusion on the question of van-type school buses arises from the fact that we have issued regulations at various times under two separate statutes. The potential effect of the regulations is sometimes not apparent unless they are read side by side. This is particularly true of the basic definitions. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, which applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles:

"School bus" means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools.

This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety (Public Law 93-492). As part of our effort to implement the school bus amendments, we undertook rulemaking to establish a regulatory definition. In the course of this rulemaking, we noted that the capacity of a "school bus" as defined in the Act (more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver) was one person larger than the capacity of a "bus" as defined in the standards (more than 10 persons). To make the regulatory definitions consistent, we defined a "school bus" as a category of "bus", thereby including a vehicle with a capacity of more than 10 persons including the driver. The complete regulatory definitions of "bus" and "school bus" are as follows (49 CFR S571.3(b)):

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Pennsylvania's recent enactment of Act 1984-146 conforms the definition of "school bus" under Pennsylvania law to our regulatory definition in 49 CFR S571.3.

Although we have exercised our discretion under the Vehicie Safety Act to exclude certain transit-type vehicles, the great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of school bus. More specifically, any new bus sold to a school district, or to a school bus contractor, is considered to be a school bus and must comply with the school bus safety standards applicable at the time of sale. A dealer or distributor who sells a non-complying bus to a school district or school bus contractor is subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

Under the Highway Safety Act, which deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States, we defined Type I and Type II school vehicles in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, 23 CFR S1204.4 (hereafter, HSPS 17). These definitions are as follows:

"Type I school vehicle" means any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. This definition includes vehicles that are at any time used to carry schoolchildren and school personnel exclusively, and does not include vehicles that only carry schoolchildren along with other passengers as part of the operations of a common carrier.

"Type II school vehicle" means any motor vehicle used to carry 16 or less pupils to or from school. This does not include private motor vehicles used to carry members of the owner's household.

The distinctian between school vehicles according to whether their passenger capacity is more than 16 appears only in HSPS 17, which relates only to the operation of the vehicles. At the point of sale, the Vehicle Safety Act standards apply. An 11 passenger bus, for example, would be required to be sold with school bus lights and mirrors conforming to the requirements for school buses found in Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 111 (49 CFR SS571.108, 571.111), the same as a school bus with a capacity of 44 passengers.

This is the point at which the interaction between the different Acts becomea crucial to an understanding of the lighting and marking requirements of HSPS 17. For the smaller buses that it defines as Type II school vehicles, HSPS 17 creates alternative requirements in Section IV.B.5.a: a Type II school vehicle must either (1) conform to the requirements applicable to Type I school vehicles (yellow paint, black bumpers, warning lights, and "School Bus" signs), or (2) be devoid of all school bus equipment and identifying features. There is no middle ground: Type II school vehicles must be either fully equipped and identified, or not equipped or identified at all. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). It therefore has the equipment specified by HSPS 17 for Type I school vehicles. Because it must have this equipment, it would not comply with IV.B.5.a(2) of HSPS 17. In a State whose law fully incorporated HSPS 17, such a bus would have to be painted and signed, as required by IV.B.5.a(1).

Let me stress once more that if a school district or school bus contract operator purchaces a bus to transport students, that bus must comply with the federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses, including the requirements for warning flashers, regardless of the provisions of State law. It is not relevant for Vehicle Safety Act purposes that the bus might be used in some areas where its warning signals may not be activated. The only relevant question is whether the bus will be used to transport students to and from school or related events.

The memoranda and letters attached to Mr. Pachuta's letter reflect differing interpretations of one section of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code which bears on the question of school bus equipment. This section, 75 Pa.C.S. S4552(h), provides that

established by the department shall not require vehicles which pick up and discharge schoolchildren only at locations off the highway to be of any particular color or to display flashing red and amber lights.

The letter from Mr. David H. Dille, Assistant Solicitor for the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, asserts that this section prevents the State from requiring a Type II school vehicle to "be painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow and to be equipped with flashing red and amber lights." In contrast, the opinion of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, as reflected in the letter of March 13, 1984, from Douglas K. Tobin, Director of Driver Licensing, and the supporting memorandum from Michael R. Deckman, Deputy Chief Counsel, is that the Federal regulations interact to require Type II school vehicles to be equipped with warning lights, yellow paint, and "School Bus" signs.

In my view, Mssrs. Tobin and Deckman are essentially correct. Mr. Deckman's memorandum cites the passage in the guidelines we issued in Notice 900 on June 1, 1977, in which we concluded that HSPS 17 would require buses equipped with the school bus lighting system to be painted and signed. We have consistently maintained this position in subsequent memoranda and correspondence, and we believe that it reflects the operation of a "Federal law or regulation" that prevents Section 4552(h) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, by its own terms, from allowing the use of school buses without warning lights and yellow paint. This is the case even though our agency has not elected to insist on the State's compliance with HSPS 17 as a condition for receiving highway safety funds.

As a final note on the operation of school buses under Section 4552(h), it is consistent with the Federal regulations for a State to designate areas in which school bus warning lights may not be used. The standards under the Vehicle Safety Act regulate only the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, not their use. Under the Highwsy Safety Act, section C.3.b of HSPS 17 expressly states that the "use of flashing warning signals while loading or unloading pupils shall be at the option of tne State." Thus, while our regulations require s school bus to be equipped with school bus warning lights, we do not specify the circumstances in which the lights must be used. If Pennsylvsnis chooses to invoke Section 4552(h) by designating aress in whioh warning lights should not be used, it may do so.

To summarize, our laws and regulations provide that:

o A vehicle is a bus under the Vehicle Safety Act if it is designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

o A bus sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events is s school bus under the Vehicle Safety Act.

o A school bus manufactured after the effective date of a school bus safety standard under the Vehicle Safety Act must comply with the standard.

o The safety standards now in effect require school buses to have school bus warning lights, mirrors and other safety equipment.

o Under the Highway Safety Act, HSPS 17 provides that a school bus equipped with school bus warning lights must also be painted yellow and marked as a "School Bus".

o A State is free to specify the circumstances under which the warning lights are to be used.

I hope that you will find this letter responsive to your needs. Please do not hesitate to write if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eddie Cole Answer Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Eddie Cole Answer Products, Inc. 27967 Beale Court Valencia, CA 91355

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter regarding the importation of motorcycle helmets by your company from Italy.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, applies to helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. You stated in your letter that there is a DOT "approval sticker" on the helmet and that your company's name is clearly displayed on the helmet. Standard No. 218 requires that each helmet be permanently and legibly labeled with the manufacturer's name or identification, model designation, size, month and year of manufacture, and the symbol DOT. The DOT symbol does not indicate approval of any helmet by the Department of Transportation. Instead, the DOT symbol represents the manufacturer's certification that the helmet meets all the requirements of Standard No. 218. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information.

As an importer, your company is also considered a manufacturer under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is administered by this agency. Therefore, either your company's name or the Italian manufacturer's name should be af fixed to each helmet. Your company and the Italian manufacturer are both responsible for any defect in the helmet or failure to comply with the standard's requirements.

You asked about other regulations of which you should be aware. Copies of these are enclosed:

49 CFR Part 551--Procedural Rules (Subpart D--Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers). 49 CFR Part 566--Manufacturer Identification.

If you need additional information, please contact this office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

December 11, 1984

N.H.T.S.A. Office Chief Council 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20690 Attn: Mr. Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt

Please let me introduce our company to you. We are, Answer Products, 27967 Beale Ct., Valencia, Ca., 91355.

We currently are importing helmets from Italy. The helmet does have a D.O.T. approval sticker on it, but the manufacturers name is not displayed on the helmet. Our name is clearly displayed on the helmet.

We do have a product liability insurance policy, from the manufacture for, $5,000,000 and our own policy for $2,000,000.

I need to know if there is any other special regulations that we need to be aware of, and also if the manufacture name should be displayed on each helmet?

My secretary spoke to a agent in your office this morning and he mentioned a standard 218, which I am not familiar with. Is there any way you could send me a copy of this?

I would appreciate any information you could forward to me concerning this. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Eddie Cole V.P. Answer products, Inc. EC:sc

ID: 1985-01.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Barry Merten, Senior Product Development Engineer, Fisher-Price Diversified Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Barry Merten Senior Product Development Engineer Fisher-Price Diversified Products 636 Girard Avenue East Aurora, NY 14052-1885

This responds to your letter to Mr. Oesch of my staff and to Mr. Radovich of our Rulemaking division, seeking interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that your company plans to produce a new design of child restraint, which incorporates automatic belt retractors for the shoulder belts. These belts are permanently attached to a semi-rigid front restraining shield, which has a buckle built onto the bottom that attaches onto a tongue rigidly fixed within the seating surface. After connecting the buckle on the shield to the tongue,the parent must then push the shield toward the child so that it fits snugly. This automatically takes in the slack in the belts.

You asked two questions about the application of Standard No. 213 to this design of child restraint. The first concerned section S8.1.2.4, which specifies that, prior to testing, the belts on a child restraint shall be adjusted so that there is 1/4 inch of slack. The automatic belt retractors in your design may leave up to 3/4 inch of slack in the belts. You asked if the 1/4 inch slack requirement effectively prohibits the use of belts with an automatic retractor. It does not.

At the time Standard No. 213 took effect, all belts on child restraint systems then on the market were manually adjustable. Hence, they could be adjusted to introduce any amount of slack desired. To ensure that all child restraints would be tested under identical conditions, a provision was added to Standard No. 213 specifying the precise amount of slack which should be present. This specification of test conditions was not intended to establish a requirement that all belt systems on child restraints be manually adjustable, so that the specified amount of slack could be introduced. Instead, it was intended to function as an impartial specification for all belt systems, whether or not they were manually adjustable.

Section S6.1.2.4 sets forth the amount of slack to which all belt systems on child restraints should be adjusted before running the sled test. However, systems which are not manually adjustable may be tested with more slack present, since the greater slack would make the test more severe. No belt system, whether or not manually adjustable, can be tested with less than the specified 1/4 inch of slack, since that would make the test less severe for child restraints equipped with such a belt system. Section S6.1.2.4 is not intended to favor any particular type of belt system. Accordingly, you may test your child restraint with more than 1/4 inch of slack present in the belts.

The second question you asked was whether the language specified in section S5.5.2.(h) could be slightly modified for use on the labels to be affixed to your child restraints. That section requires that the following language appear on the label: "Snugly adjust the belts provided with this child restraint against your child." Since the belts on your child restraint will not be manually adjustable, you would like to modify the language to read: "Snugly adjust the shield provided with this restraint against your child and test that the belts are locked."

Your proposed modification would ensure that the directions, which again were written with manually adjustable belts in mind, contained the appropriate modifications for belts with automatic retractors. Your proposed modification does not make any substansive change in the meaning of the directions specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language of the instructions for child restraints where the belts themselves are not manually adjustable, it is permitted.

Should you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NOA-30:SKratzke:426-2992:cyb:12/26/84 NOA-30:Subj/Chron NOA-30-:SKratzke NRM-01 NFF-01 Interps. Std. 213 Redbook OCC 1514 and 1534

Vladislav Radovich Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Radovich,

A belated thank you for your time and help during our visit last August 15 to discuss the Fisher-Price Car Seat under development. Your comments were very helpful and we are now preparing for production of, we feel, the most convenient and one of the safest Car Seats available.

We do have several requests for you and your legal department. We would like a ruling on the application of Standard 213 Test Procedure S6.1.2.4 specifying snugly adjusted belts. Our means of restraining the child in the Car Seat consists of a semi-rigid T-shaped shield with a buckle built into the bottom that attaches onto a tongue rigidly fixed within the sitting surface. Two shoulder belts emerge from the top of the shield and run through slots in the seat back where they attach non-adjustably to a connector bar. This bar is sewn into a single belt running up the back from an automatic locking set belt retractor mounted under the sitting surface.

The retractor applies a constant spring tension to the belt at all times. A mechanical override, activated when the buckle is detached from the tongue, allows the belt to pay out. Thus, the user can pull an excess length of shoulder strap while installing or removing a child. With the buckle attached to the tongue, the retractor automatically locks so that no belt can be pulled out, only slack taken up.

At this point, the semi-rigid shield stands somewhat clear of the child, resisting the pull of the retractor winding spring. The instructions will direct the user to "push the shield toward th child for a snug but comfortable fit and the belt slack will be taken up." Because of the racheting mechanism in the retractor, slack is taken up in increments of one-half to three quarters of an inch. Therefore, there may be up to 3/4 of an inch of slack in the belt system that cannot be taken out. Although we expect this condition to meet Standard 213 requirements, it precludes the application of the procedure specifying snugly adjusted belts. Barbara Kelleher of Calspan Corporation has requested this ruling for the compliance tests they will be running.

Also, since the use of a retractor is not addressed in Standard 213, we would appreciate a ruling or statement regarding the acceptability of our approach. We have chosen the automatic locking approach because we believe it offers the highest degree of safety. Will you please refer these requests to your legal department for us?

Also, during Dave Campbell's and my visit with you last August to review the product, the acceptability of a recess in the upper back surface was questioned. We feel there was agreement during the meeting that the protrusion limitation (S5.2.4) does not apply. In a telephone conversation with you a few days later, it was agreed that the area is in compliance with S5.2.2.1 since the system has a continuous back support surface greater than 85 square inches below the recess in question. I believe these were the only points in question.

Sincerely,

FISHER-PRICE DIVERSIFIED PRODUCTS

Barry Merten Sr. Product Development Engineer /mam

ID: 1985-01.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harleigh Ewell, Esq. -- Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Harleigh Ewell, Esq. Office of the General Counsel U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207

This responds to your letter asking whether a certain product would be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 (4)). The product is a "trouble light" which can be plugged into either a standard 120 volt outlet or a vehicle's cigarette lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider this product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.

The relevant language in section 102(4) specifies that any "accessory or addition to the motor vehicle" is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. In previous interpretations of the section, NHTSA has considered a product to be an accessory if it has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of the motor vehicle. The product with which you are concerned does not satisfy the first part of this test, since it is designed to be used both in the motor vehicle and in the home. Therefore, NHTSA does not consider this product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

December 11, 1984

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our staff has become aware of a possible defect in a "trouble light" that makes provision for use either plugged in to a standard 120 V socket or in to a car's cigarette lighter. The problem is that while the light is plugged in to the 120V socket, contact with the exposed lighter plug could result in exposure to either 60V or 120V, depending on whether the fluorescent light is turned on.

As you probably know, the Consumer Product Safety Act, at 15 U.S.C. S 2052(a)(1)(C), excludes "motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment" from the definition of "consumer products" that the CPSC can address. Therefore, in order to help us determine whether CPSC has authority to take action with respect to this product, we would like to know NHTSA's views on whether the trouble light described above could be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4).

Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Harleigh Ewell Attorney

ID: 1985-01.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Keith A. Sharp, Esq. Lillick, McHose & Charles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Keith A. Sharp, Esq. Lillick, McHose & Charles 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017

Dear Mr. Sharp:

This responds to your recent letter to Betsy Harrison of this office concerning the importation of unassembled components for bus chassis from Japan. According to the information in your letter, your client, Isuzu Truck of America, Inc. (IST), is considering importing these unassembled components from Isuzu Motors Limited in japan, and assembling them into bus chassis in the United States. Then, IST would sell the bus chassis to companies which would install bodies on the chassis.

You ask whether your client, IST, would be responsible for assigning a vehicle identification number (VIN) to the bus chassis, which are produced using the imported components. Based on the information given, the answer is yes. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, IST would be considered the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle, because IST would be assembling a frame and chassis structure which would require substantial additional manufacturing operations before it becomes a completed vehicle.

You also state that U.S. Customs may not release the unassembled bus chassis components to IST at the port of entry unless the components bear vehicle identification numbers. We are not aware of any customs regulation which requires a VIN to be affixed to unassembled chassis components.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 4, 1984 Betsy Harrison, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Vehicle Identification Numbers

Dear Ms. Harrison:

We are attorneys for Isuzu Truck of America, Inc. ("IST"). IST is the distributor of trucks and buses manufactured by Isuzu Motors Limited, a Japanese corporation, in the United States. IST is contemplating importing into the United States unassembled components for bus chassis. IST would assemble the components into bus chassis which would then be sold by IST to companies which would install bodies on the chassis and resell them to end-users.

Your office has previously advised us, on an informal basis, that IST would be the party responsible for placing the required vehicle identification numbers on each bus chassis. We request that you now confirm your opinion in writing. We note that IST is concerned that U.S. Customs may not release the bus chassis components to IST at the port of entry unless the components bear vehicle identifi-cation numbers. We would appreciate your comments on the existence of such a problem.

If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

LILLICK McHOSE & CHARLES

By:

Keith A. Sharp

KAS:slm

cc: Art Sato Candy Watson

ID: 1985-01.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John L. O'Connell Department of Motor Vehicles State of Connecticut

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John L. O'Connell Department of Motor Vehicles State of Connecticut State Street Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109

This responds to your October 15, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about an emergency door which is installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Your first question asked whether this additional emergency exit is required to comply with Standard No. 217. In particular, you asked about the labeling requirements. FMVSS No. 217 requires that additional exits on school buses which are intended as emergency exits must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses. These additional emergency exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with the requirements for exits in non-school buses.

Your second question asked whether the door may be sealed shut. You also asked whether sealing the door would have any effect on the compliance of the bus with FMVSS No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The answer to this question depends on who seals the door, and when this work is performed. As you probably know, NHTSA does not have the authority to prohibit an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicle. A school may modify its own vehicle in any manner without assuring that the vehicle remains in compliance with motor vehicle safety standards. Of course, it may be more difficult to insure a vehicle which does not conform to the safety standards. The school can also expose itself to increased liability in the event that one of their noncomplying vehicles is involved in an accident.

After the vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, manufacturers, dealers, distributors or repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. The additional door could be sealed by a manufacturer or repair-type business as long as there were sufficient other emergency exits available on the vehicle so that it remains in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 217. Moreover, the door were sealed after the vehicle's first sale, FMVSS No. 221 would not be a factor. This is because doors are not considered "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of the standard. Since the additional door was not regulated by Standard No. 221, there would be no rendering inoperative of the compliance of the door with that standard.

If you decide to Seal the emergency exit shut, we would encourage you to remove the labels to avoid possible confusion in the event of an accident.

If the door was made inoperable prior to the vehicle's first sale, FMVSS No. 221 would be a factor. This is because the person sealing the door is an "alterer," and must attach a label indicating compliance of the altered vehicle with the standards. When the door is sealed, it becomes part of the bus wall structure. As such, any joints on the door that would fall within the ambit of Standard No. 221 would be required to comply with that standard. The alterer would also be required to remove any labels and operating instructions from the exit which was sealed, since labels indicating that a door can be used as an emergency exit when in fact the door is inoperative would not conform to Standard No. 217.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 15, 1984

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This correspondence relates to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., who manufacture a school bus with a right side emergency door, in addition to the emergency exits required by FMVSS No. 217.

If a school bus is manufactured in conformance with the emergency exit requirements of FMVSS No. 217, and additionally, a right side emergency exit is provided. must that additional exit be in compliance with all the requirements of FMVSS, including markings?

If it does not have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 217, may it be sealed shut? If yes, would a sealed door have any significant effect on the school bus's meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 221 for School Bus Body Joint Strength?

Your response to these questions will be a valuable assistance to us in guiding our inspection personnel.

Very truly yours

John L. O'Connell Public Transportation Administrator

JLO:ECP/k

cc: Howard Smith Bus Sales Ron Marion, Thomas Built Buses

ID: 1985-01.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office 3861 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 1507 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1984, concerning several questions about Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

In all of your questions, you in essence asked whether automatic safety belts are required to meet the marking requirements of section 4.1(j) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that automatic belts complying with the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not required to meet the marking requirements of Standard No. 209.

As explained in detail in the enclosed agency interpretation letter of August 7, 1981, to Volkswagen, automatic safety belts that meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of section S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are only required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 that are incorporated by reference in section S7.1 of Standard No. 208. Section S7.1 of Standard No. 208 only incorporates provisions directly related to retractor performance and does not incorporate the marking requirements of S4.1(j) of Standard No. 209.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 21, 1984 NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Interpretation of Marking Requirement for Passive Seat Belts

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing this request for NHTSA's opinion on this subject on behalf of NSK-Warner Co. Ltd. (NWC) of Japan, which is a producer of automotive seat belts and is one of NSK's subsidiaries.

Question 1) Are the passive seat belts required to have the identification marking label sewn or glued on the belt similar to the active seat belts, for ever-ready viewing of such? or is ever-ready viewing of the identification label not required although the I.D. label must be on the seat belt?

2) Is it sufficient to have the identification marking on components other than the belt, such as the retractor or buckle frame, where ever-ready viewing of such could not be practical?

3) Are there other interpretations of the marking requirement than the above?

Background information:

1) NWC needs to know NHTSA's interpretation on the above subject matter for planning the production of its passive seat belts which would be somewhat similar in external appearance to the Toyota Cressida type or the diagonal belt of the VW Rabbit.

2) NWS's customer auto-manufacturers are indicating their dislike far sewing the identification label onto the belt webbing.

3) The probable alternate method would be gluing the I.D. seal label or mark-stamping it onto the retractor frame or the mounting bracket. In this case, the retractor or bracket might be hidden under some form of cover or be located in the center console box, for which ever-ready viewing of such I.D. marking is not practical.

Your kind attention to this request for NHTSA's interpretation of the marking requirement for passive seat belts would be appreciated by us.

Very truly yours,

Binichi Doi NSK Representative

BD/lgc

ID: 1985-01.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rod L. Stafford Fryford Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a "hammock-like seat which, unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab." You stated that you plan to sell your product as an item of aftermarket equipment and asked about the application of our regulations to your product.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, 210, and 302. We were pleased to learn that you have nevertheless voluntarily designed your product to conform to those standards.

As a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

ENC.

2ND SEAT

OCC 0014

Office of the Chief Council National Traffic & Highway Safety Administration

Attn: William Smith

Mr. Smith,

We are a manufacturer of an aftermarket product with the trade name "2nd Seat," and this letter regards the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to our product.

The "2nd Seat" is essentially a hammock-like seat which, when unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab. The seat is designed to be installed in a rearward-facing attitude, and the rider position is recumbent with an upper body angle which is reclined more than 45 degrees from the vertical axis. The width of the bench thus formed is 45".

We have designed our product to conform to the requirements set forth in Secs. 207 thru 210 of the motor vehicle codes, and the Sec. 302 which refers to Fire Retardant standards. We have performed an engineering study which indicates that our product exceeds the requirements for both the strength of the seat body, and the safety restraint system. However, we understand that the standards are not specifically directed at the aftermarket and that compliance on our part may therefore be subject to a specific ruling from your Department.

If you require more detailed information about the "2nd Seat" or if there is a customary posture which the Administration generally assumes in such cases, please inform us at your earliest convenience.

Rod L. Stafford Fryford Corporation

ID: 1985-01.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/85

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROGER HAGIE -- MANAGER, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/19/84 FROM ROGER HAGIE TO NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 108; OCC 1383

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hagie:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1984, asking for an.. interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to motorcycle headlighting systems.

Referencing our letter of July 24, 1984, to Koito in which we confirmed that a motorcycle could be equipped with two headlamps, side by side, each meeting the requirements of SAE J584, you have asked "Does the 75,000 limit (as specified by SAE J584) apply to each lamp individually, or must the total output of both lamps be limited to 75,000 cd?"

SAE J584 states in pertinent part that "The beam or beams from a single lamp shall meet the candle power specifications listed in" Table 1. This table established a maximum of 75,000 candela "anywhere" for a single lamp. This means that the limit applies to each lamp individually under the Koito interpretation.

You have further stated that Kawasaki is considering a headlamp design that consists of two reflectors, each with its own dual-filament bulb, each capable of independent aim installed in a single housing, and behind a single lens. You have asked if such a design is acceptable for a motor-cycle, and whether both reflectors would have to be independently aimable or could the aiming be accomplished by moving the whole lamp assembly.

Your contemplated design is acceptable for motorcycles; SAE J584 refers to a "light source or sources" (see "At-Focus Tests"). However, a two-bulb design in a single housing would have to be designed to meet J584's requirements for a single headlamp including maximum output of 75,000 cd. Further, Standard No. 108 permits independently aimable reflectors, or aim by moving the entire assembly whichever you prefer. All that is required is that the unit meet SAE J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,