ID: nht89-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/89

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA

TO: HOWARD WOLPE -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 12/21/88 FROM HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS TO JAMES BURNLEY; LETTER DATED 12/12/88 FROM DENNIS D. FURR TO HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wolpe:

Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Burnley on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr of Lansing, Michigan. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for admi nistering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Mr. Furr is concerned about the potential safety problems that may result if school bus seats are being overloaded. In particular, Mr. Furr asks whether NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guideline (HSPG) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR @ 1204.4 ), is consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222), with regard to seating specifications. Mr. Furr is particularly interested in how manufacturers are calcul ating the number of seating positions on a bench seat.

I am pleased to address your constituent's concerns. Before I begin, I want to note that we have answered a number of similar inquiries from Mr. Furr in past years.

We have two sets of "regulations" for school buses. The first, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Compliance with these standards is mandatory fo r new vehicle manufacturers, and is enforced by this agency with civil penalties. FMVSS No. 222, with which your constituent is concerned, is one such safety standard. The second set of "regulations," or guidelines, for school buses was issued under th e Highway Safety Act. Guidelines issued under this Act are not mandatory for the states; rather, they are recommended practices. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, to which Mr. Furr frequently refers in his letter, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and pertains to Federal funding of State highway safety programs.

Both FMVSS No. 222 and Guideline No. 17 contain specifications for school bus seating. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 states: "The number of

seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number." The guideline for seating accommodations in HSPG 17 states:

Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufacturers to provide seating accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 4 9 CFR 571.3.

Mr. Furr appears to see a conflict between the formula used in calculating the forces to be applied to the seats of large school buses under FMVSS No. 222, on the one hand, and the use by States and manufacturers of 13-inch seating positions for rating t he capacity of a 39-inch seat, on the other hand. I believe that Mr. Furr's belief in the existence of a conflict rests on a misunderstanding.

We view Standard No. 222 and HSPG 17 as complementary, not inconsistent. HSPG 17 reflects NHTSA's belief that all school bus passengers should be seated in the interest of safety. To that end, the guideline provides that there should be a seating posit ion for each passenger and that the position should be at least large enough to accommodate a 5th percentile adult female. The hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches.

The figure "15" in FMVSS No. 222's compliance formula is not a minimum requirement for the width of a seating position. It is the number which is used to establish the number of designated seating positions and ensures that the forces applied to the sea t during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It is also the number which ensures that the width of the smallest seat is approximately equal to the hip width of the 5th percentile female. That is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female. Use of the figure "15" in the FMVSS No. 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (f or a 38-inch wide seat.) That is only slightly smaller than the 12.8 inch hip width of the 5th percentile female. For a 39-inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger than the hip width of a 5th percentile female.

It should be remembered, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the FMVSS No. 222 formula is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all size occupants. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of wide ly varying ages and sizes, reasonable accommodations may vary between those values. The decision on how many passengers may be

comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved.

NHTSA does not have the authority under either the Highway Safety Act or Vehicle Safety Act to regulate how States use school buses. Therefore, NHTSA could not preclude a State from carrying more passengers on a bench seat than there are designated seat ing positions. However, this agency argues with Mr. Furr that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalizati on. We believe that Mr. Furr's concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by his working with the local school board and state officials.

Mr. Furr is also concerned about a reference in our occupant crash protection standard (No. 208) to a 95th-percentile adult male occupant size. He asks why FMVSS No. 222 uses a 15-inch seat dimension, when FMVSS No. 208 references the 95th-percentile ad ult male occupant size in specifying occupant sizes which safety belts must adjust to fit.

Both FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 222 are directed at providing occupant crash protection. Both of these standards set forth comprehensive requirements that are directed at protecting occupants likely to be inside a vehicle in a crash. With regard to sch ool buses, the agency determined that the crash protection requirements should be developed taking into account the full size range of passengers typically riding on school buses. If we designed the force and deflection (energy-absorbing) characteristic s of the seats for the 95th percentile males, the seats may be too stiff for a small child.

Finally, Mr. Furr asks whether, when voluntarily installing safety belts on large school buses, States are violating Federal law by using S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 in determining how many positions (and belts) there are on a bench seat. The answer is no. FM VSS No. 222 requires safety belts only for the passenger positions of small (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) school buses. Under S5 of the standard, belts on a small school bus bench seat are installed at "W" seating positions, as determined under S4.1. If a State wishes to order belts on its new large school bus and to use the same method for determining the number of belts to be installed, the State may do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/89

FROM: HARRY REID -- SENATE

TO: DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/25/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; REDBOOK A33 [4]; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/03/8 9 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTOMOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICL E CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985; RESEARCH NOTES ON CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH 03/31/89, FROM VERNON ROBERTS

TEXT: Dear Director:

The City of Sparks Police Department has a problem with the air bags that are equipped in their patrol cars.

The Police would like the United States Department of Transportation to authorize them to disconnect the bags. I would appreciate it if you could look into this matter. A copy of a letter from the Sparks City Attorney is enclosed for your review.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/89

FROM: DAN TREXLER -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES

TO: JOAN TILGHMAN -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/89 EST; FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 04/27/88 FROM L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; LETTER D ATED 12/20/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO MELVIN SMITH -- ILLINOIS DOT

TEXT: Dear Ms. Tilghman,

Several months ago I spoke with you over the phone regarding the enclosed letter. Please let me know if we can expect a response i.e., interpretation, to this in the near future.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht89-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/89

FROM: KEITH A. MCDOWELL -- VICE PRESIDENT -- ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS GROUP AMERICAN SEATING CO

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA, OCC 2908

TEXT: Honorable Chief Justice:

I have not received a reply on my letter dated December 9, 1988 regarding seat belts on buses. May I have your answer?

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/89

FROM: PETER J. YANOWITCH -- DAVIS MARKEL AND EDWARDS

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: IMPORTATION OF PORSCHE MODEL 959

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/20/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO PETER J. YANOWITCH, RE IMPORTATION OF PORSCHE 959, REDBOOK A33 (2), IMPORT REGULATIONS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I represent a non-resident of the United States who intends to import a Porsche Model 959 under the United States Customs' Procedure 19 CFR Part 1280 (b)(1)(v), which permits such individuals to import an automobile for personal use for a period not t o exceed one year from the date of entry so long as the automobile is not sold within the United States.

I respectfully request that you confirm to me in writing that if a non-resident of the United States utilizes this United States Customs Procedure, the Department of Transportation would not have jurisdiction to impound, confiscate, destroy, require a bond, or otherwise take any action with respect to the vehicle, so long as the non-resident fully complies with the provisions of 19 CFR Part 1280 (b)(1)(v).

I further request that you confirm that the Department of Transportation would not object to the non-resident driving this vehicle on the road during the one year period.

My client is prepared to confirm to your agency by sworn testimony that he will comply with the requirements of the United States Customs Regulations. Due to certain time constraints, I would appreciate your response by March 10, 1989.

Thank you for your cooperation. I have enclosed a self-addressed Federal Express Airbill which will be charged to my firm for your convenience.

ID: nht89-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/28/89

FROM: ROBERT C. SMITH -- CONGRESS

TO: SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA TO ROBERT C. SMITH, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 222; LETTER FROM MAUREEN ANDREWS TO ROBERT C. SMITH

TEXT: Dear Secretary Skinner:

Recently, I have been contacted by constituents concerned about school bus safety.

At your earliest convenience, would you please provide me with information regarding federal responsibility and regulation in this area? Moreover, I would appreciate the same type of information on the issue of safety belts on school buses. Has the Department of Transportation conducted any studies on safety belts in school buses? Finally, the concern has been expressed to me that the seating of three children per seat is unsafe due to the crowded conditions and children falling off or being pushe d out of the seat. I would appreciate your specifically addressing this matter.

Thank you for your assistance.

With warm regards,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/17/89

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33[2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMET ER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Ms. DeMeter:

In a letter dated September 10, 1988, I resolved a concern with you regarding confidentially related to my requested evaluation of my invention, the "Sudden Stop Flasher." Your previous letter to me was dated July 13, 1988.

I would like to know the status of the evaluation please, and also how much longer you believe the evaluation will require.

Thank you very much for your attention.

ID: nht89-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/02/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROBERT J. LATUS -- POSTMASTER U.S. POST OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/07/88 FROM ROBERT J. LATUS TO NHTSA, SUBJECT PRIMARY BRAKE LIGHT, OCC 2942

TEXT: Dear Mr. Latus:

This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1988, regarding the functioning of stop lamps on a 1989 Oldsmobile Ciera car. You reported that the hazard warning lamps override the stop lamps on this model when both lamps are activated simultaneously. You have been informed that this is a new federal regulation. You have asked us to explain the regulation, reporting that foreign cars do not seem to present the problem you have identified.

At the outset, it may be helpful if we explain the applicable regulation, which is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Under this standard, hazard warning systems are installed for use to indicate a disabled or slow moving vehicle in the roadway ahead. They ordinarily operate through the turn signal lamps, which can be either amber or red in color. In those rear lighting configurations where the turn signal lamps are red, they are frequently combined with stop lamps. (Combined lamps are those that share a common compartment and lens.) Under our standard, in a combined system the turn signals are required to take precedence over the stop lamps when both are activated. However, the rule does not specify a required order of precedence between the hazard warning lamps and the stop lamps. The stop lamps may be overridden by the hazard warning lamps when both are activated simultaneously, or the stop lamps may continue to operate and override the hazard warning signals. Our standard has allowe d either method of operation since it was first promulgated in 1968. Thus, there has been no change in the applicable regulation. As to your comment about foreign cars, it is our understanding that a large percentage of imported vehicles use amber rear turn signal and hazard warning systems, in which case the stop lamps and turn signal lamps are not combined. Therefore, both would operate independently when both are activated.

Since our standard allows both methods of operation, your dealer may legally modify the vehicle so that the primary stop lamps take priority if they and the hazard lamps are activated simultaneously. However, the

dealer may not legally alter the car is such a way that the alteration permits the primary stop lamps to override the turn signals if both are activated simultaneously.

We appreciate your interest in safety, and I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: THERESA ROONEY -- ALPINE ELECTRONICS OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/26/87 FROM THERESA ROONEY TO ED GLANCY -- NHTSA, RE FMVSS 101, OCC 1676

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rooney:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that it is your understanding that any car sound system which is f actory installed must have light intensities that have two values, a higher one for day and a lower one for night; that these two light intensities do not have to be variable; and that any color may be used to illuminate the system. You asked for confir mation of this understanding. As discussed below, Standard No. 101's requirements in this area are somewhat more flexible than suggested by your letter.

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

The requirements of Standard No. 101 that are relevant to car sound systems are set forth in section S5.3.5. That section states:

S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (110.6 mm) rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for th e controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

With respect to car sound systems, section S.5.3.5's requirements can be summarized as follows. First, the requirements generally apply to any car sound system that is installed in a motor vehicle before its first sale to a consumer and that includes a source of illumination which is forward of the driver. Second, the section requires that any such source of illumination have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a sin gle intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. No color requirements are specified for the source of illumination of a car sound system.

I would note that, at the option of the manufacturer, motor vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989, may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 100 instead of the requirements of Standard No. 101. This provision is of relevance for some, bu t not all, car sound systems, and only for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989. If you desire further information about this provision, please contact us.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/89

FROM: JAMES L. OBERSTAR -- CONGRESS

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/05/89, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JAMES L. OBERSTAR, REDBOOK A33(2), VSA SECTION 123

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Joseph Mikoll of Transportation Equipment Corporation (TEC) of Hopkins, Minnesota, with whom you have previously corresponded regarding passive restraints for school buses of 10,000 GVWR or less.

I have read your opinion that installation of TEC's "safety bar devices could not be in place of seat belts and still meet crash protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 222.

I am writing to request answers to two additional points.

1.) Is there a procedure that TEC could follow to request a waiver of the provisions of Standard No. 222 which would allow its safety bar devices to be the sole passive restraint on small buses?

2.) Are there DOT funds available to firms such as TEC to do rigorous testing and R&D on passive restraint devices?

Any light you can shed on this situation would be greatly appreciated. Please respond to my Duluth District Office.

Sincerely,