ID: 77-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's November 2, 1976, request for confirmation that head and knee contact areas specified under S5.3.1.3 and S5.3.2.2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, may be measured by the use of the direct transfer of a medium (such as spray paint) from the head or knee form to the seating surface with the addition of the area that falls within nonintersecting lines that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. You also request confirmation that the impact requirements of S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, and S5.3.2.2 may be conducted on seating that is attached to a test fixture instead of being mounted in a bus body. In both cases you suggest rulemaking action to make your recommended procedures a part of the standard.

When a standard does not specify a particular aspect of a requirement, such as the means to measure contact area, a manufacturer is entitled to use any reasonable method it chooses to demonstrate, in the exercise of due care, that the regulated vehicle or item of equipment in fact conforms to the requirement. For your information, the agency intends to use a contact medium test similar to the test you describe and will include in its computation of "contact area" the maximum area that falls within nonintersecting line segments that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. The outer bounds of direct contact do not include areas that represents splattering of the transfer medium without contact of the head or knee form.

In response to your second request, Standard No. 222 is a vehicle standard. Therefore, the impact requirements have meaning only as they apply to seating when installed in a vehicle. For this reason the agency intends to conduct its compliance testing with the seating installed in a bus. The agency's contemplated procedure may involve the removal of seating around the seating being tested, and the test device may be mounted to the floor in place of the seating that is removed.

However, the requirement that the seating conform as it is installed does not prohibit a manufacturer from using a different test procedure from that specified, in view of the NHTSA's expressed position on the legal effect of its regulations. To certify compliance, a manufacturer is free to choose any means, in the exercise of due care, to show that a vehicle (or item of equipment) would comply if tested by the NHTSA as specified in the standard. Thus, the NHTSA test procedures need not be duplicated by each manufacturer or compliance test facility. Blue Bird, for example, is free to conduct its test on a test fixture outside the bus as long as it can certify that its vehicle would comply if tested by the NHTSA according to the standard.

In view of this disposition of your requests, the agency does not intend to undertake modification of Standard No. 222 at this time. The NHTSA will continue to monitor the results of tests conducted to determine compliance with the head and kneeform contact area requirements of the standard and will modify the standard if warranted.

SINCERELY,

November 2, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this letter is to discuss two problems associated with FMVSS 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, which are caused by the technical state of the art of seat impact testing and to ask for approval to proceed based on the two proposals described below.

First problem - Contact Area S5.3.1.3 and S5.3.2.2

Background 1. FMVSS 222 requires a headform contact area of 3 square inches when impacted at 5 feet per second and a knee form contact area of 3 square inches impacted at 16 feet per second.

2. The requirement of 3 square inches is based on bio-mechanical data and is, therefore, not disputed.

3. It is our understanding that the feasibility of the 3 square inch requirement was verified based on impact tests on foam without upholstery.

4. It is believed that the problems of measuring contact area with upholstery were not anticipated.

Problems of Contact Area with Upholstery:

1. The tension of the upholstery is virtually uncontrollable as it is affected by many factors including tolerances of the seat back, foam pad, and upholstery; installation techniques; temperature; etc.

2. There are several types and weights of upholstery offered as standard equipment and as options. Various state specifications require different upholstery materials.

3. The grain of the upholstery varies and can affect contact area results.

4. The method of determining contact area has not been defined and such factors as transfer mediums, area measurement techniques, and documentation methods can cause large variations in results.

Example of Effects of Upholstery on Contact Area:

The following table shows the significant difference that the use of upholstery can make at several impact locations of Blue Bird drawing #0833079 (copy attached). These contact areas were determined using black spray paint sprayed on the head and knee form as the transfer medium, with the imprint transferred to tracing paper, and the area measured with a Planimeter. Figure Impact Location Contact Area (square inches) Number Dwg. No. 0833079 with 42 oz. upholstery Direct transfer Bounded by tangent lines 1 H5 2.76 3.20 2 H7 2.53 4.85 3 H11 2.53 5.24 4 H12 2.14 4.29 5 K3 wall side 2.92 X 6 K3 aisle side 3.26 X 7 K4 center 2.45 X

Figure no upholstery Number Direct transfer 1 8.75 2 8.30 3 9.90 4 10.90 5 5.80 6 5.89 7 5.05

Discussion: 1. It is felt that the contact area problems associated with upholstery are measurement problems.

2. It is felt that our seat is in compliance with the contact area requirement with or without upholstery, however, due to inadequate measurement techniques we cannot verify compliance when upholstery is used.

3. Obviously, we meet the spirit of the requirement since it was based on 3 square inches of contact area without upholstery and we accomplish this in all areas with a significant margin.

4. The problems of contact area with upholstery have been discussed with the Office of Crash Worthiness and Office of Standards Enforcement on several occasions. The latest of these were meetings on October 28th and 29th, 1976.

Recommendations:

1. Because the contact area problem is one of measurement methodology, we recommend that the NHTSA develop a proper methodology and incorporate it into the standard through the Rulemaking Procedure.

2. Since in the meantime we must release designs, commit tooling, and order material we are asking for approval to proceed based on a conservative approach of defining contact area as that area circumscribed by tangent lines drawn between points of direct paint transfer. See figures 1 to 7.

Second Problem - Impact Test Inside Bus S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, S5.3.2.2

Background: 1. The NHTSA has indicated it plans to conduct all seat performance tests including impact test inside a bus body.

2. Blue Bird Body Company agrees that it is most desirable to conduct impact tests inside a bus body, however, impact testing inside a bus requires a compact, portable, and adjustable test fixture incorporating a fired projectile.

3. All of the impact testing conducted at Blue Bird Body Company has been done outside a bus body using cable suspended pendulums to impact seats. The seats are mounted on bus body floor sections secured to rigid fixturing. The fixturing allows the seat to be positioned to different impact locations and different impact angles in order to meet the requirements of S5.3.1.2 ". . . when any contactable surface . . . is impacted from any direction . . . ."

Problems: 1. Blue Bird Body Company has done development work on a pneumatic fired impact testing device but have not been able to perfect one because of the rigid requirements such a device must meet.

2. The primary factors that have prevented us from perfecting a successful testing device are:

a. The standard requires that the headform exhibit no resonant frequencies below 3000 Hz and the knee form, no resonant frequencies below 1800 Hz and specifies the data channel class for each. Section S6.6.2 and S6.7.2.

b. The standard specifies the total equivalent weights and the shapes of both the head form and knee form. Sections S6.6 and S6.7.

c. The measurement of Force-Distribution S5.3.1.3 requires a very sensitive data acquisition system capable of accurately sampling low level data (0 to 13.04 "G's" compared to up to 200 "G's" for the H.I.C. requirement) at a high sampling rate (approximately 10,000 data samples per second).

3. Within the above size, shape, and weight requirements we have been unable to build a testing device that had sufficient rigidity of the head and knee forms and the supporting and guiding fixtures to eliminate undesirable and intolerable signal inputs produced by the test fixture, with the exception of a cable suspended pendulum which cannot be used inside a bus body.

Examples of Fixturing Induced Signals:

1. The top half of figure 8 shows an oscillograph trace of a Head Impact with our cable suspended impact pendulum. Note the first portion of the trace, 0 to 13.04 G's, which is the area of the curve used in determining Force Distribution, is free of fixture imparted - low amplitude - high frequency signal and can be accurately sampled at a 10 KG sampling rate by a computer in order to calculate a Force Distribution value.

2. The lower half of figure 8 shows an oscillograph trace of a Head Impact with our most successful pneumatic fired impact fixture. The signal, prior to and during the critical initial part of the impact, has a low amplitude, high frequency signal superimposed on it. This is believed to be a fixture imparted signal. This signal cannot accurately be used manually or with a computer to determine a Force Distribution value.

Discussion:

1. It is felt that resonant frequency and fixture imparted signal are fixturing problems and because of the complexity and interplay of these problems we know of no impact test system, fired projectile or otherwise, that could be used inside a bus at all angles and at all impact locations required to comprehensively evaluate seat impact performance.

2. It is felt that our seat is in compliance with the impact requirements because impacting a seat mounted on a rigid fixture is considered to be a more severe test than impacting a seat mounted in a bus.

3. Obviously we meet the spirit of the requirements since we are testing under conditions we believe to be more severe than intended and have spent considerable effort and resources in trying to develop new test fixturing.

Recommendations:

1. Since we know of no other alternative we recommend that Impact Testing for Compliance be performed outside a bus on a "rigid" fixture which can be used to orient the seat in front of the impact form. We request immediate rulemaking action be taken by the NHTSA to require impact testing be performed outside the bus.

2. For the reasons mentioned earlier we are asking for approval to proceed based on impact test data generated on a rigid fixture outside a bus.

In Summary: May we have immediate approval to:

1. Proceed based on tangentially circumscribed contact areas,

2. Proceed based upon impact test data generated on a rigid fixture outside a bus.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Emilio Noriega

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 3, 1976, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, prohibits the installation in a towing vehicle of a service brake control that is designed to permit separate, sequential, or simultaneous actuation of the service brake systems of the towing vehicle and any towed vehicle.

Assuming that the valve for the towing vehicle represents a "split" service brake system as specified in S5.7 of Standard No. 121, such a service brake control design would not conflict with the Standard's requirements. Of course, the actual compliance of any vehicle with Standard No. 121 depends on the actual installation and performance of the system as well as its design.

I would like to note that the agency is not endorsing the service brake control in question by the issuance of this interpretation letter. In fact, the agency is unsure about the effect the control may have on safe braking in a panic situation. Any test information that you or a vehicle manufacturer may care to provide would be appreciated.

ID: 77-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/77 EST

FROM: LOWELL K. BRIDWELL -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TO: HAROLD T. HALFPENNY -- AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Halfpenny:

This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1967, seeking clarification as to the effect of the recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on theaftermarket repair automotive industry.

In your letter you have expressed the opinion that vehicle parts sold after the effective date of the standard must conform to such standards only when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard. You have asked if this opinion is correct and specifically whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold.

The answer to your question, as you have correctly noted, requires an examination of section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This section prohibits the manufacture or sale of any". . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (emphasis supplied). It should be noted that this provision of the law makes no distinction between systems, parts or components, nor does it distinguish between original equipment manufactured for replacement, improvement, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. Any such distinctions would depend in each instance upon the terms of the "applicable" standard.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 23 CFR 255.21, each contain a paragraph designated S.2 and entitled "Application." This paragraph establishes the coverage of that particular standard by identifying the motor vehicle and/or motor vehicle equipment to which the standard applies. Where the application paragraph refers only to vehicles, the person responsible for compliance is the manufacturer of such motor vehicles. An example of this type coverage is found in Standard No.107- REFLECTING SURFACES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. "Since this standard does

not apply to motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturers of equipment otherwise referred to in the standard,e.g., windshield wiper blades and arms, have no legal obligation to conform to the standard. This is true notwithstanding the fact that equipment manufacturers will be furnishing such equipment to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment.

Where,however, the application paragraph refers to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles, both the manufacturer of such equipment and the manufacturer of the specified vehicles are responsible for compliance. An example of this type coverage is Standard No. 106 - HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars and multipurpose passenger equipment." All hydraulic brake hoses manufactured and sold on or after January 1,1968, must conform with this standard whether such brake hoses are manufactured as original equipment or as replacement for either prestandard or poststandard/motor vehicles.

There were six of the twenty Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued on January 31, 1967 (32 F.R. 2408) applicable to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, Standards Nos. 106, 111, 205, 206, 209, and 211. Two of these standards,No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors, and No.206 - Door Latches and Door Supports,were amended on March 29,1967 (32 F.R.5498),to exclude coverage of equipment and are now applicable only to certain specified vehicles. This means that manufacturers of rearview mirrors,door latches and door supports will not be required to comply with these standards. Therefore, only the following four initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are now applicable to motor vehicle equipment:

Standard No. 106 - Hydraulic Brake Hoses -- Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Standard No. 205 - Glazing Materials -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps -- Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Pursuant to each of the above standards, equipment manufacturers of the specified motor vehicle equipment must manufacture such equipment in conformance with the standard whether it is to be used as original equipment on new vehicles,as a replacement part,an accessory,or an addition to the motor vehicles specified in the standard. None of the above standards exempt from coverage equipment manufactured and sold for replacement or as an accessory to prestandard vehicles.

In summary, your opinion to the effect that motor vehicle parts manufactured and sold "after the effective date of the standard must conform to such

standards when they are forreplacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard, and not otherwise" is incorrect. Your question as to "whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold" must be answered in the negative with regard to Standards Nos. 106, 205, 209, 211, for the reasons I have outlined above.

I trust that this response clarifies the issues you have raised in behalf of Automotive Service Industry Association. If I can be of further assistance to you or members of your association, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. M. C. Hatfield - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: With regard to my letter to you of July 1, 1976, concerning the application of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to the paver manufactured by Layton Manufacturing Company of Salem, Oregon, I would like to advise you of a clarification of the requirements of the standard that may be relevant to Layton's product.

Essentially, it has been clarified that the requirement of S5.1.1 of the standard accommodates a manufacturer's decision to equip its motor vehicle with tires other than "tires for highway service." This means that Layton can choose to use tires that do not conform to the requirements set forth in S5.1.1 of the standard. I have enclosed a copy of the notice that contains a detailed discussion of this clarification.

ID: 77-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Robert Bosch Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1977, asking for confirmation of several interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

You are correct that, as an equipment standard, Standard No. 108 applies only to replacement of equipment that was originally mounted on the vehicle to enable it to comply with the requirements of the standard. It does not apply to items not covered by the standard, but which are frequently provided as new vehicle options, such as fog lamps and cornering lamps. Any item of lighting equipment not required is permissable to be installed, as you also noted, if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3). Additional lighting equipment is otherwise subject to State regulation.

You also asked "what would be the NHTSA's stand on products where SAE standards do not exist, for example halogen headlights?" A halogen headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108 and is intended as a replacement headlamp may not be imported and sold for this use. On the other hand, halogen fog lamps may be imported and sold, subject to State regulations.

I hope this answers your questions.

YOURS TRULY,

ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION

January 26, 1977

Office of Chief Council (N40-30) NHTSA

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108

We have inquired at your Chicago District Office regarding FMVSS108. Robert Weltzer of that office has been extremely helpful in providing information and clarifying our questions. He also suggested we contact you for confirmation of a few points and insight into some others.

Robert Bosch is studying the feasibility of marketing a full line of auxilliary and replacement lighting products. As we understand it, FMVSS 108, Section 2, applies 1). only to actual replacement of equipment supplied new with the vehicle. 2). It is also implied that additional equipment which interferes with OE equipment would fall under this regulation. Can you confirm this?

We would interpret this to mean that 108 does not apply to products offered solely as auxilliary, add-on equipment. In practice, however, we realize that most states rely on the recommendations of the AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administration) which bases its recommendations on compliance of equipment with SAE standards, usually verified by ETL testing.

What would be the NHTSA's stance on products where SAE standards do not exist, for example, Halogen headlights?

Since no federal law would then apply to such products, are we right in assuming that state laws would prevail, more or less making the AAMVA's approval mandatory?

We are quite interested in literally shedding some light on the confused regulations prevailing in the U.S. for on-highway vehicle lighting. Bosch has some exceptional lighting products which have proven themselves in the European and Canadian markets in particular. We would also like to contribute here to the same safety awareness and concern that our products address themselves to in other countries.

Any insight and comment to the situation at large would be very much appreciated. We are particularly looking forward to your specific reactions to the questions raised in this letter to help guide our marketing decisions for lights.

Allan Cheshire Market Research Analyst

ID: 77-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the British Standards Institution's December 2, 1976, request to know what constitutes "first purchase of [a new motor vehicle] in good faith for purposes other than resale" as this phrase is used on @ 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1) and @ 567.7 of NHTSA regulations (Part 567 -- Certification). You also ask to know the legal basis for any distinction between "original equipment" and "replacement equipment" as those terms are used in regulation of motor vehicles and equipment in the United States.

I can confirm your understanding of @ 567.7 of our regulations, as set forth in the statements which you designate as "(a)" and "(b)". With regard to statement "(b)", @ 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle incompliance with an applicable standard. Thus a dealer could not make the sunroof alteration if he knew that installation rendered inoperative the minimum roof crush capabilities specified by Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.

Your statement designated "(c)" is not necessarily correct. The NHTSA's interpretation of the meaning of "first purchase" relies substantially on the modifier "in good faith."

Thus the agency evaluates the circumstances of the purchase with a view to whether or not there is an attempt to circumvent the requirements of law and applicable regulation. For example, when purchasers asked for disconnection of ignition interlock systems by dealers after contracting for the purchase of a vehicle, the agency required that bona fide physical delivery take place without an immediate return of the vehicle to the dealer for disconnection. As a practical matter, the new provision of the Act discussed above (@ 108(a)(1)(A)) prohibits dealer action of this type in the future.

Since the 1974 amendments to the Act, there has been a distinction between "original equipment" and "replacement equipment". I have enclosed a copy of our proposal to implement this distinction for purposes of Federal regulation. I believe your question actually addresses the practices of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. You may wish to contact one or more of those organizations for an answer to your questions.

ID: 77-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oconomowoc Public Schools; Wisconsin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 3, 1977, letter asking whether the new school bus definition (effective April 1, 1977) precludes the use of vans which seat less than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school.

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) authorized the NHTSA to redefine the term "school bus" to include all motor vehicles which seat 10 or more passengers and which transport children to and from school. The NHTSA redefined the term in accordance with the wishes of Congress for the purpose of prescribing safety requirements for buses that fall within the definition. The definition does not preclude the use of vans or any other type of motor vehicle which seat fewer than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school. Such vehicles may transport children without complying with the school bus safety requirements.

SINCERELY,

Oconomowoc Public Schools

February 3, 1977

Charles E. Duke Deputy Administrator NHTSA

Members of the Wisconsin Legislature are attempting to define a school bus to allow some flexibility for vehicle use in the under 10 passenger capacity. Senate Bill 110 was introduced on Wednesday, February 2, 1977 with the leaders attempting to push it through without opposition. The bill has many fine features with only one specific area of concern on the part o school administrators.

In place of using the term "vehicles under 10 passengers," the author stated specifically "an automobile or station wagon that is not designed or constructed as a van" may be used. This is for transportation other than transportation of children to or from school. The proponents for this measure claim the new federal regulation to be enacted on April 1, 1977 will require all states to conform to this measure. Since many schools have small vans for use in lunch delivery, mail service, and the like, they find these vehicles very useful in transporting small groups like the golf team, forensic students, and band groups and at a minimum cost.

I am enclosing the portion of Bill 110 that pertains to vehicle on use of the description. Please review the measure and provide a ruling term "vehicles under 10 passengers" in place of "an automobile or station wagon that is not designed or constructed as a van" with reference to the new federal regulation.

The chairman of the review board on legislative measures stated yesterday that he felt a hearing on Bill 110 would be held by February 15, 1977. I realize the request is on short notice but also realize that without some interpretation from your agency, we will be forced to live with a measure that will be very costly and inefficient.

Thank you for your help and assistance.

Carlyle Holtan Director of Transportation

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: 77-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Topeka Metropolitan Transit

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 4, 1977, letter posing several questions concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus and its effect upon the use of transit buses to transport children to and from school.

You asked several questions in your letter:

(1) Are buses designed and sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation prohibited from use in school transportation services under Federal regulations?

Buses sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation (transit buses) are not prohibited from use in school transportation. The definition of "school bus" is not intended to include transit buses on regular common-carrier routes, although they may be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school and related events. This type of bus has never been considered a school bus under the motor vehicle safety standards for school bus construction or under the Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17 (43 CFR 1204) for school bus operation.

(2) If the answer to (1) is no, must such buses when used incidentally in school transportation services comply with any safety standards required of "school buses" under the Federal regulations and if so, from which are they exempt and to which must they comply? (of special concern is forward facing seats requirement of 49 CFR @ 571.222 - s5.1).

The answer to your question is no. As noted above, common carriers in urban transportation are excluded from the Federal definition of "school bus" and need not comply with any Federal school bus construction regulation. While Kansas has chosen to define "school bus" differently (and in a manner to include these transit buses), this state definition represents a voluntary decision to extend Federal construction requirements (such as forward facing seats) to a broader catagory of vehicles than dictated by Federal law and regulations.

(3) Do federal regulations encourage or discourage the incidental use of common carrier buses to help solve urban school transportation problems?

Federal safety regulations promulgated under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act neither encourage nor discourage the incidental use of transit buses to transport children to and from school.

(4) Is the Kansas law with regard to school buses, by its definition in K.S.A. 8-1461 (Supp., 1976), and its requirements of under K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp., 1976) (which include all safety requirements of the Kansas Transportation Manual, effective May 1, 1976) preempted, as applied to common carriers sold and designed for use in urban transportation, by federal law under 15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)?

The NHTSA responded to your question on preemption in our letter dated June 15, 1976. That response is still valid. With regard to your question concerning the preemption of the Kansas definition of "school bus," only state motor vehicle safety standards in conflict with Federal standards are preempted. State definitions of terms are not preempted by Federal definitions.

SINCERELY,

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

January 14, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On May 17, 1976 the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority requested an opinion from your office concerning a proposed amendment to an existing Kansas statute and its possible conflict with Federal law. Your responsive opinion of June 15, 1976 was helpful but our efforts failed in the Kansas legislature.

Currently, under my understanding of Kansas law, the TMTA is prohibited from transporting any school child to or from school in its buses which were designed and sold for use as common carriers in urban transportation because of the Kansas definition of school bus (K.S.A. 8-1461 Supp, 1976), the requirement of forward facing seats (K.S.A. 8-2009 (a) Supp. 1976) and many other regulations issued by the secretary of transportation under authority of K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp. 1976) to which TMTA's common carrier buses do not comply.

Consequently the TMTA is proposing amendments to the Kansas statutes which prohibit the use of our buses in school related transportation. There is concern by the Director of Highway Safety that to allow utilization of TMTA's buses would violate Federal law and regulations, and in the 1976 legislature session he convinced the legislators of his belief.

To clear up this controversy we request an update of your last opinion by responding to the following specific questions:

(1) Are buses designed and sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation prohibited from use in school transportation services under Federal regulations?

(2) If the answer to (1) is no, must such buses when used incidentally in school transportation services comply with any safety standards required of "school buses" under the Federal regulations and if so, from which are they exempt and to which must they comply? (of special concern is forward facing seats requirement of 49 CFR @ 571.222 - s5.1).

(3) Do federal regulations encourage or discourage the incidental use of common carrier buses to help solve urban school transportation problems?

(4) Is the Kansas law with regard to school buses, by its definition in K.S.A.8-1461 (Supp., 1976), and its requirements of under K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp., 1976) (which include all safety requirements of the Kansas Transportation Manual, effective May 1, 1976) preempted, as applied to common carriers sold and designed for use in urban transportation, by federal law under 15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)?

Answers to these questions or as many of them as you feel is appropriate, will greatly clarify our position.

James N. Clymer Legal Staff

ID: 77-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 6, 1977, question regarding the effective date of the recent amendment to Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, that specifies color coding requirements for brake fluids (41 FR 54942, December 16, 1976). You asked whether motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date for the color coding requirements (September 1, 1978) may be equipped with brake fluids manufactured prior to that date that do not conform to the color coding requirements.

The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 116 specifies that motor vehicles having hydraulic brake systems shall be equipped with brake fluid that has been manufactured and packaged in conformity with the requirements of the standard. The agency interprets this to mean that vehicles shall be equipped with any brake fluid that conformed to the requirements of Standard No. 116 at the time the brake fluid was manufactured.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

January 6, 1977

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation regarding the effective date of brake fluid color coding requirements (MVSS 116, Docket 71-13; Notice 12) for the motor vehicles.

My understanding is that even on and after September 1, 1978 the motor vehicles can be equipped with brake fluid manufactured before that date which do not meet the color coding requirement of S.5.1.14 because FMVSS 116 except S5.3 does not apply to the motor vehicle manufacturer but to the brake fluid manufacturer. Is my understanding correct?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above.

Very truly yours, Tokio Iinuma -- Staff, Safety

ID: 77-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION