ID: nht87-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Philip T. Kelly

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Philip T. Kelly Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Rock Hill School District Number Three P.O. Drawer 10072 522 East Main Street Rock Hill, S.C. 29731 Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking two questions about the applicability of our school bus safety standards to vans. I apologize for the delay in our response.

Before I begin to answer your specific questions, it might be helpful to provide some background information on our school bus regulation. Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act applies to the manufacturer and sale of new motor vehicles and includes the motor vehicles safety standards for school buses we believe that those motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. We the "school bu s regulations" to which you refer in your letter.

In general, the parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. The act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically a pplicable to "school buses". Further, under the vehicles safety act, each person selling a new bus to a school must ensure that the bus complies with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses or be potentially subject to fines under federal law . Because the Vehicle Safety Act applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and not to vehicle use, there is no federal prohibition directed against a school or school district that uses noncomplying buses to carry school children.

NHTSA issued the second set of -regulations- for school buses under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. Those regulations, or highway Safety program standards, are recommendations from this agency to the states for developing their highway safety pr ograms. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), includes recommendation; for the operational aspects of state pupil transportation programs, such as school bus identification maintenance and driver training. I ndividual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. A state that has adopted this standard might have specifications applying to small "vans" used as school vehicles. Because the issue is one concerning state law, South Carolina officials would be able to provide you with more information on state requirements for the operation of smaller school vehicles.

With this background, I will now address your specific questions. Your first question asked whether a vehicle carrying 11 or fewer persons (driver included) must conform to federal school bus requirements. Our regulation; issued under the Vehicle Safety Act specify that a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered a "bus," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. If a new vehicle is designed for carrying 10 or fewer person s, it is considered under our regulations to be either a "passenger car" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV). We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require them to comply with Federal school bus safety standard;. Instead, they must meet safety standards applicable to MPV's.

Your second question was "Can a van designed for 14 passengers be redesigned for 10 passengers and not be required to meet Federal school bus requirements?" Before I explain the consequences under Federal law of removing seats from a 14-passenger bus, I would like to reiterate that our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of school buses or to restrict the seating in your 14-passenger vans to take them out of our "school bus" category. By so reducing the passenger capacity, the vehicle's classification would be changed from a bus to a, MPV. Accordingly, the alterer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the federal safety standards applicable to MPV's. Among other things, this would require the a lterer to install safety belts at all seating positions. If the modifications were made after the vehicle's first purchase, our regulations on vehicle alteration would no longer apply.

However, modifications to used vehicles are subject to a statutory restriction. Specifically, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering ino perative equipment or designs that are incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that a commercial modifier in any of the above categories may remove seats in your vehicle, but must ensure that t he vehicle continues to comply with all applicable federal safety standards after the seats have been removed. The Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for any person who violates section 108(a)(2)(A).

Neither the prohibition against rendering inoperative in @10B (a)( 2) (A) of the Safety Act nor our regulations issued under the Safety Act applies to an owner modifying his or her own vehicle. Therefore, if your school district chooses to reduce the pas senger capacity of your vehicles, you may perform the work on your own vehicles without regard to any Federal regulations administered by this agency. Again, however, you should ensure that the modification is done in conformance with any applicable Sout h Carolina laws.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 1, 1986 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs;

We would like to request some interpretation of the standards for school bus safety as they relate to vans.

1. If a vehicle carries no more than 10, passengers, must it conform to the Federal school bus requirements?

2. Can a van designed for 14 passengers be re-designed for 10 passengers and not be required to meet Federal school bus requirements?

Your attention to this request is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Philip T. Kelly Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services

ID: nht87-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1987, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of @4.5.1 of the standard. I hope that the following discussion an swers your question.

@4.5.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that each vehicle with a crash deployed occupant protection system must have a label setting out a manufacturer's recommended schedule for the maintenance or replacement needed to keep the performance of the occupant p rotection system at the level required by the standard. @4.5.1 further provides that "the label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment." You explained that at the present time, you placed the label for your air bag s ystem on the glove box door. You further explained that you placed all other important safety-related information, such as the certification label and tire information placard, on the latch post for the driver's door.

You stated that you want to relocate the air bag label from the glove box door to the latch post on the driver's side. You explained that one of the benefits of the new location is that it will establish a common location for the operator to quickly find important information. You said that the new location should remind vehicle operators of the replacement schedule since the tire pressure placard, which is routinely reviewed by the vehicle operator, is in the same location. Finally, you noted that deal ership service personnel will be alerted to the replacement schedule since "it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post."

NHTSA agrees that a label placed on the driver's latch post would meet the requirements of @4. S. 1. The purpose of the location requirement is to place the replacement and maintenance schedule in a location that can be easily observed by the vehicle own er. Thus, the standard requires the label to be within the occupant compartment of the vehicle. The agency considers a label placed on thy latch post, which is inside the exterior surface of the vehicle and in a part of the physical structure that consti tutes occupant compartment, as meeting the location requirement. As you pointed out in your letter, the latch post is already used as a location for other important safety-related information about the vehicle.

If you have any further questions on this standard or need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 16, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-208 Dear Ms. Jones:

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. requests an interpretation of FMVSS-208 "Occupant Crash Protection in Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses". Paragraph @4.5.1 Labeling and Driver's Manual Information provides that, "The (crash deployed occupant protection system maintenance or replacement) label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment ..." (emphasis added)

Our request for interpretation concerns the phrase "within the passenger compartment". Currently, our replacement label for the airbag system is contained on the glove box door. At the same time, all other critical vehicle information, such as the "certi fication label" and "tire information placard", are placed on the driver door latch post.

We intend to relocate our airbag replacement label specified by FMVSS-208 to the same driver door latch post area from the glove box door. This relocation will result in:

1. A common location established on the vehicle for the operator to more quickly find important information.

2. Vehicle operators being more often reminded to take notice of the replacement label since the tire pressure placard is also in this location and routinely reviewed.

Ms. Erika Jones page 2 Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-208

3. Dealership service personnel will be more quickly alerted to vehicles at or near their replacement date since it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post.

We regard the driver door latch post area where the label will be placed as within the confines of the passenger compartment as required by the regulation. The label will be placed on the passenger compartment side of the outer door seal.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our location interpretation and thank you in advance for your response.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING NATIONAL SALES MANAGER

TO: SEBASTIAN MESSINA -- NJ DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION CHIEF MOTOR CARRIER INSPECTIONS & INVESTIGATIONS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K BROCK; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM TERRY K. BROCK. TO STEVE KRATZKE RE CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE 217; OCC 1009

TEXT: Dear Mr. Messina,

I am writing regarding the 25 passenger Diamond VIP bus sold by Mr. Fred Sarlo of Wolfington Body Company. It was brought to our attention that we had not provided adequate emergency escapes per F.M.V.S.S. Code #217.

It was our pleasure to speak to your inspector, Mr. Vince LaBosio, yesterday via the telephone. He requested that I follow up our conversation with this letter to your attention.

It is very much a concern to Coons Manufacturing, Inc. that we are meeting the F.M.V.S.S. Code #217. However, we along with other manufacturers of this type bus, have in the past considered our front entrance door as an emergency side exit. We have enclosed diagrams of this electric entrance door. We are requesting you to better assist us in understanding why it is unacceptable to use this as one of the required side emergency exits. Also, on the driver's side we have, in the past, considered th e driver's window, which is 20"x20" clear opening or 400 square inches, as an additional side emergency exit. Again, it is our desire to meet the F.M.V.S.S. requirements, as well as, your own New Jersey requirements.

Please respond as soon as possible, in as much as, the customer has a very limited amount of time left on the 60 day extension permit that you extended to him. It is our desire to correct this problem prior to that permit expiring. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht87-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. l.Daihatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I have previously responded to your r equests for interpretations of the other two standards. I regret the delay in this response.

Your questions concern the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard, which provides that "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area." You expressed concern about determining whether several different armrest designs comply with that requirement. Specifically, you provided three examples and asked how the requirement would apply to each example. Your example I11 .1 is an armrest that, when viewed in side elevation (i.e., a view in which a person is looking from in front or behind an armrest to determine how the armrest projects from the door surface) has a flat surface. Example I11.2 is an armrest that has a sli ghtly curved surface. Example I11.3 is an armrest with a surface that is steeply angled inward toward the door. Because of the angling of the armrest, it has a sharp projection at its top.

You believe that examples I11.1 and I11.2 comply with the requirement of S3.5.1(c). You also believe that example I11.3 would not comply because of its sharp projection. However, you expressed concern about what criteria should be used to distinguish example I11.2 from example I11.3.

S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201 does not set any radius of curvature requirements for armrest surfaces. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to provide an armrest with a flat surface. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least two inches o f coverage within the pelvic impact area. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce potential injuries to an occupant by ensuring that the armrest has a minimum surface area that will spread the force resulting from an occupant impacting the armrest in a crash. Thus, for this requirement to have a meaningful effect, an armrest should be designed to ensure that there is at least two inches of contact between the surface of the armrest and the pelvic impact area of an occupant. If your examples I11.1 an d I11.2 provide two inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area, they would appear to comply, since they present an essentially flat surface. Based on your drawing, it appears that the steep inwardly sloping angle of the armrest shown in example I11 .3 may not contact a minimum of two inches of the pelvic impact area. One method of determining the degree of occupant contact would be to measure the amount of contact between a test dummy and the armrest in a static push test or in a dynamic side impac t test. We share your concern that an armrest not have sharp projections which could concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.

Finally, you provide a drawing of an additional armrest. Briefly described, the armrest has a slightly curved surface with a decreasing radius within the pelvic impact area. At the top of the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area there is a small indentation. The agency has previously said, in an interpretation letter of July 1, 1983 to MMC Services, Inc., that bezels and other indentations are not precluded by the standard. However, the area of the indentation will not be measured in det ermining whether the armrest provides two inches of coverage if the indentation is so deep that it cannot be contacted. Based on your drawing, the indentations shown in your proposed armrest is shallow and would be contactable by an occupant. Thus, the s urface area of the indentation would be counted in determining whether the vehicle complied.

Finally, I would point out that S3.5.1(c) is one of three optional means of compliance that manufacturers may choose. A manufacturer may also meet the requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with either S3.5.1(a) or S3.5.1(b), in which case it is n ot necessary to provide two inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear MS. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3)

cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (1)

FMVSS No. 101 ; Controls and Displays

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that; "Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for night time conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the h eadlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph." However the applicable items (illuminations) of the above provision are not necessarily definitely for us. we believe that these provisions are applied only to the illuminations for the controls or gauges which are somehow regulated otherwise in FMVSS No. 101, and are,not applied to the illuminations which are optionally equipped and are not otherwise mentioned in the standard, such as following illuminations in Concrete; (1) Digital clock using liquid crystals (2) Radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals (3) Miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio control switches, etc. which are lightened only when the headlights (parking lights) are activated.

We would like to confirm that the above items are not applied the variable illumination requirements. Please advise us in detail in this matter.

QUESTIONNAIRE (2)

FMVSS No. 201 ; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Paragraph S3.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201 provides the dimensional requirements for armrests as follows;

"Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically inside elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area."

Our concern, however, centers on how to measure the armrest vertically in side elevation.

We believe that this provision does not necessarily require completely plain area of 2 in. x 2 in. on the armrests such as I11.1 below, and that the armrests which have, to some extent, rounded inside surface, such as I11.2, shall be deemed in compliance with this provision.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

And we also believe that, no matter how the armrests have more than 2 in. side elevation, considerably sharply projected armrests such as 111.3 shall be deemed in noncompliance with the provision.

However, we can not be sure the criteria for distinguish 111.2 from 111.3. Though we think the most important point to be concerned is its contactability by the occupant, we can not necessary surely know the procedures to prove the contactability. Theref ore we would like to ask your kind favor of showing us the guideline to how to measure armrests to decide the compliancy to S3.5.1(c).

And further, as we are designing a little more complicated shape such as shown on the next page, we wish you would advise us about the compliancy of the armrest. INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

QUESTIONNAIRE (3)

FMVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 219 provides; "When the vehicle ......, no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...." In the case that the windshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template (by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl, or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the vehic le is deemed in compliance or not. (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

ID: nht87-2.76

ID: nht87-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Laurie J. Schonauer -- Bethell Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Laurie J. Schonauer Bethell Company P.O. Box 191 Colton, CA 92324-0087

Your letter of May 14, 1987, addressed to the office of Vehicle Safety Standards, was referred to me for reply. Along with your letter, you sent marketing literature, and samples of your product, a device you are marketing under the name "Insta-cone." Yo ur literature indicates your intention to market this device principally as an emergency traffic warning device. The product is made of bright orange corrugated paper and has three connected triangular faces. You shipped your product folded along the leg s of the triangles, and packaged in a clear paper wrapper. A user unfolds your device, and connects tabs and slots along the legs of the triangles to form a pyramid. At the base of two triangles that form the pyramid is a long tab with covered adhesive s trips. According to your literature, a user assembles your product, uncovers the adhesive, and secures it to the ground with these adhesive taps. Buried in one leg of the triangle is a small nail for securing the product in ground where the adhesive will not take hold.

You ask the questions. The first is whether this agency will send you a letter stating that your product may he used to indicate the presence of a disabled passenger vehicle. The second question is whether this agency will send you a "statement. . .that it is a good idea for passenger vehicles to have a first aid kit, (your product), or even flares in the trunk in case of an accident or breakdown." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does no t approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse and commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

Standard 125, Warning Devices, sets uniform design specifications for devices used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a disabled vehicle. The Standard applies to any such device without a self-contained energy source that is designed to be ca rried in motor vehicles and erected when needed to warn approaching traffic. Your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and falls under this Standard. Thus, the "Insta-Cone" must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configurat ion, color, and selectivity. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards. In answer to your first question, you do not need a letter from this agency to market your device as motor vehicle equipment for use to warn approaching traffic of the pr esence of a stopped vehicle, so long as your device meets FMVSS 125 requirements. However, NHTSA's preliminary review of your product indicates that the "Insta-cone" may not comply with the color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability requir ements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market and sell it as a warning device.

As I stated earlier in this letter, this agency does not endorse commercial products. In answer to your second question, NHTSA must decline to supply you with the kind of statement you suggest. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure Standard No. 125 - omitted

May 14, 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Safety Cones

As per Captain Wood of the California Highway Patrol in Sacramento, I am sending a sample and general information about a new safety cone.

It is my understanding that an item of this nature does not need approval. I have a couple reasons for writing this letter. First, is it possible to get a letter from you stating that these cones may be used on the shoulder to indicate the presence of a disabled passenger vehicle as shown in the illustration on the package. Second, in order for us to try to promote safety, can we get a statement from the Safety Administration that it is a good idea for passenger vehicles to have a first aid kit, safety cones, or even flares in the trunk in case of an accident or breakdown?

To give you an idea of the massive programs being set up to help promote safety and our disabled citizens, I am forwarding copies of letters sent that will more explain what we are doing. If I could get some support from this Administration we can possib ly help save some lives, as well as promote workshops for the disabled. Please contact me at your earliest convenience or write. We will be starting this program on July 1st, 1987.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Bethell Co.

Laurie J. Schonauer

LJS/kb Enclosures cc: Easter Seal Society/ CBS News / California Highway Patrol PRODUCTION DESCRIPTION "Insta-Cone" Emergency Traffic Safety Cones are a new, low cost, 12" safety cone made of ridged corrugated cardboard. Three bright fluorescent cones are neatly shrink - wrapped together for easy storage in the trunk of a passenger vehicle or behind the seat, out of the way until you need it.

*Visible: Eye catching reflective surface gets attention. *Durable: Withstand high winds because of the sturdy 3 dimension design and six pressure sensitive adhesive tabs. *Convenient: Instantly snaps together for quick use. November 18, 1986

File No.: 62.A218.A6078

Laurie J. Schonauer Bethall Company P.O. Box 191 Colton, CA 92324-0087

Dear Ms. Schonauer:

The pyramidal foldable Insta-Cones described in the attachments to your letter of October 31, 1986, are a type of device that does not require approval by this Department. They may be faced on the shoulder to indicate the presence of a disabled passenger vehicle as shown in the illustration on the package. The Insta-Cones are not a legal substitute for the triangular emergency reflectors that are required to be carried by trucks, truck tractors, and travel trailers that are 80 or more inches wide. Those reflectors must meet the regulations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, copy enclosed. Further information on that standard may be obtained from:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 470 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

We hope this information will be helpful to you. The samples you sent for our review are being returned with this letter. Very truly yours,

L. P. WOOD, Captain Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

Enclosures April 28, 1987

Ms. Laurie J. Schonauer Bethell Company P.O. BOX 191 Colton, CA 92324-0087

Dear Laurie,

Thank you for your decision to utilize the Easter Seal Rehabilitation Workshop for assembly and packaging of the INSTA-CONE Safety Cone and Auto-Pack. We look forward to accomplishing your work with quality and efficiency in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline M. Peel Executive Director

JMP/cb

cc: Robert LaPage Plant Manager

PROPOSAL TO CBS/KNX NEWS RADIO (omitted)

ID: nht87-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TAK FUJITANI -- PROGRAM MANAGER, INSPECTION SERVICES OFFICE OF FLEET ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATI ON; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT; OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 06/29/89 FROM SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT TO ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- SENATE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fujitani:

This letter responds to your inquiries addressed to Joan Tilghman of my staff. Your letters concern buses purchased by the State of California, and manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division (Champion). You inform us that Champio n is a final stage manufacturer of vehicles built on a Ford chassis. You have rejected delivery of these vehicles because you assert that they do not comply with either California or Federal motor Vehicle regulations. This response addresses only those issues arising from Federal requirements.

As I understand your letters, you pose two principle questions. First, you ask whether classifying an incomplete vehicles as a "chassis" rather than as a "chassis cab" means that a final stage manufacturer can not alter the original chassis manufacturer 's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You assert that Champion's altering of the GVWR on a vehicle classified as a "chassis" is a noncompliance under 49 CFR sections 567.5 and 568.4 which you may use as grounds for rejecting delivery of Champion's vehi cles.

Your second question involves data set out in your letter of April 14, suggesting that Champion's certified GVWR for these vehicles is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, the rated cargo load, and 150 lbs. times the vehicles' designated sea ting capacity. You state that this circumstance is a second noncompliance with Federal regulations upon which you have rejected delivery of Champion's buses.

The Cutaway Chassis/Chassis Cab Question.

In both your letters, you refer to provisions of 49 CFR 567.5 and 568.4, and to a 1977 Federal Register document (42 FR 37814, 37816, July 25, 1977). You state your interpretation of these 49 CFR provisions as "mean(ing) that final stage manufacturers ( who build on RV cutaways) are not authorized to alter the (GVWR) imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for

2

certifying a greater load carrying capaci(ty) without altering axle components to handle the extra load." As I understand it, when you speak of an RV cutaway you mean a vehicle chassis with an incomplete occupant compartment, intended for completion as a recreational vehicle. For any incomplete vehicle (including a cutaway or chassis cab), Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide a document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the vehicle's compliance sta tus. This document is not a certification.

If the incomplete vehicle is other than a chassis cab, the final stage manufacturer who builds on the incomplete vehicle must certify its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). On the other hand, the certification process is different if an incomplete vehicle meets the agency's definition of "chassis cab." The Federal Register document to which you refer amended 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to conform with a court decision holding that NHTSA could not require a final stage manufacturer to make the "sole certification" of compliance for a vehicle built on a chassis cab. As a consequence of this decision, NHTSA established a dual certification scheme for such vehicles in which the chassis cab manufacturer makes one c ertification statement in each of three categories, and the final stage manufacturer makes corresponding statements depending on how the final stage manufacturer affects any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).

Under this dual certification scheme, the original chassis cab manufacturer may provide instructions telling a final stage manufacturer how to complete a vehicle so that it conforms with applicable FMVSS. The final stage manufacturer has the choice of e ither conforming his work to the chassis cab manufacturer's instructions and shifting the burden under Part 567 of certifying compliance to the chassis can manufacturer; or deviating from those instructions, and assuming the certification burden for hims elf. Further, the final stage manufacturer must certify compliance respecting any FMVSS for which the chassis cab manufacturer makes no representation.

While you are correct that in the 1977 Federal Register document the agency decided to exclude RV cutaways from the definition of "chassis cab," the only effect of this exclusion is that dual certification requirements do not apply to vehicles completed on an RV cutaway.

Therefore, the answer to your first question is that a final stage manufacturer may change the GVWR for any incomplete vehicle, irrespective of whether he builds the completed vehicle on an RV cutaway or a chassis cab. However, if the final stage manufa cturer changes the GVWR for the vehicles, it must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS at this new GVWR. Compliance with Standards No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Pass enger Cars might well be affected by an increase in the GVWR. The final stage manufacturer is required to exercise "due care" when certifying that its vehicle complies with all safety standards at this increased GVWR. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compl iance has asked the

3

[Illegible Word] stage manufacturer of these vehicles to provide the data and other evidence that were the basis for Champion's certification of compliance at this higher GVWR.

Champion's Certified GVWR Calculation.

Part 567 of NHTSA regulations sets out requirements for affixing a certification label or tag to a motor vehicles. Section 567.4(g)(3) of that Part states that the certified GVWR:

". . . shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120."

In your April letter, you supply weightmaster readings for the two Champion motor vehicles that are the subject of your inquiry. While Champion certifies the GVWR for both these vehicles at 12,000 pounds, you indicated that according to your $ 567.4(g)( 3) calculation, the same are 12,147 pounds and 12,580 pounds. This agency considers vehicle overloading a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle and for the motoring public, and NHTSA may take appropriate remedial action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, laden with its intended cargo load, exceeds the manufacturer's GVWR. NHTSA's Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance is investigating this matter further.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 17, 1987

Dear Ms. Tilghman:

This letter is in reference to our telephone conversation on February 6, 1981, concerning the interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statutes, regulations and standards. Particularly in 49 CFR 567.5, paragraph (c), ( iii), labeling and certification requirements for final stage manufacturers who complete certain incomplete vehicles. and 49 CFR 568.4 which requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document that contains:

(1) Name and mailing address of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer,

(2) Month and year during which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer performed his last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle.

(3) Identification of the incomplete vehicle to which the document applies.

(4) Gross vehicle weight rating of the completed vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle is intended.

(5) Gross axle weight rating for each axle of the completed vehicle.

(6) Listing of the vehicle types as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 of this chapter (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured.

(7) Listing by number of each standard, in effect at the time of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, that applies to any of the vehicle types listed in this paragraph (a)(6) of this section, followed in eaxch case by one of the following three types o f statement, as applicable:

(i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

(ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehcile will conform to the standard.

(iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In referencing 49 CFR 567.5, paragraph (c)(iii), we interpret the regulation to mean that the RV Cutaway chassis rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR by the incomplete vehicle, manufacturer, is not classfied as a chassis-cab, therefore, no allowance is made to perm it alterations as they do for chassis-cabs.

In the Federal Register, 42 FR 47816. July 25, 1977, NHTSA denied the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association's (RVIA) request to change the definition of chassis-cab to include certain incomplete vehicles that are completed as motor homes and cutaway ch assis, etc. RVIA requested this rule change possibly because chassis-cabs may be altered and new GAWR and GVWR ratings may be certified by the final stage manufacturer.

The provisions in part 56B - vehicles manufactured in two or more stages - prescribes methods by which manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages ensure conformity of those vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and ot her regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We interpret the regulations, 567.5(c)(iii). and 568.4(4) (5). to mean that final stage manufacturers are not authorized to alter the gross vehicle weight ratings imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for certifying a greater load carrying capacities without altering axle components to handle the extra load.

The types of vehicles in question are;

Incomplete vehicle, Ford RV Cutaway chassis, 176" wheel base, rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR.

The completed vehicles may be:

- 16 passenger bus with two (2) wheelchair stations and chair lift. - 22 passenger bus with a drive line Telma electric retarder. - 24 passenger bus.

The new gross vehicle weight ratings may be:

- 11,550 lbs. GVWR

- 11,900 lbs. GVWR

The buses being questioned are manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division; however, there are other manufacturers following similar guidelines.

We are holding up three purchases which we feel may be overloaded when maximum passengers are being carried.

Please advise us of you legal opinion on this matter at your earliest convenience. This issue is safety related and I believe that manufacturers are not in compliance with the aforementioned regulations and instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services

cc: George Williams

California Highway patrol Motor Carrier Section Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-1526

April 14, 1987

Dear Ms. Tilgman:

This is supplemental letter following my letter of request for interpretation of 49 CFR 567.5(c)(iii) and 49 CFR 568.4 dated February 17, 1987, and telephone discussions held during the past week.

As I have mentioned in my letter of February 17, 1987, be interpret the regulations 567.5(c)(iii), and 568.4(4)(5), to mean that final stage manufacturers are not authorized to alter gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle height ratings imposed by i ncomplete vehicle manufacturers, particularly, on GVWR cutaway chassis which are rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR

The factor affecting the 11,000 lbs. limitation is based on the least rated component, which is the rating of 7,400 lbs. imposed on the rear axle, Adding additional springs on the rear axle will not increase the load carrying ability of the completed veh icle. We have confirmed this through Ford Light Truck Applications and Dana Axle Applications Engineers; both have stated that the application of the completed vehicle remain; at 11,000 lbs. GVWR in RV cutaway chassis.

Champion Home Builders Company rates the completed vehicle at 12,000 lbs. GM, which is not consistent with the incomplete vehicle manufacturers instructions, and it is misleading to owner/operators to have two load ratings.

Three buses manufactured or Champion Home Builders Company and ordered for the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation at Angle Island State Park were inspected on April 1 and again on April 7 for compliance with the State specifications at TW Bus Sales in West Sacramento.

Two of these buses are 25 passenger perimeter seating tour buses, and the other is a 21 passenger forward seating bus with rear storage compartment 33 inches deep. All three buses are equipped with a Telma electric brake retarder system, CD 30, or equal. One 25 passenger bus and one 21 passenger bus were weighed to calculate the loaded weight of the buses. Following are the weighmaster readings with load calculations: 21 passenger bus 25 passenger bus forward facing seats perimeter seating rear luggage compartment seats front axle, unladen weight 3,520 lbs. 3,660 lbs. rear axle, unladen weight 5,180 lbs. 4,920 lbs. total 8,700 lbs, 8,580 lbs. 21 passengers and 25 pass engers and driver at 150 lbs. 3,300 lbs. driver at 150 lbs. 3,900 lbs. luggage-day packs or small picnic baskets 7 lbs. atx 21 people 147 lbs. 4 bicycles & rack 100 lbs total 12,147 lbs 12,500 lbs.

Certification labels on the buses are:

* Ford Incomplete Vehicle label * Champion Home Builders Co. label 11,000 lbs. GVWR Date of Mfg 11-86 type bus 12,000 lbs. GVWR WB Type Body Trans Axle Sp Inc Veh Mftg by Ford 176" E303 AK G 52 OL Dste of Mfg 9-85

* Incomplete Vehicle Manual

GVWR 11,000 lbs. F GAWR R GAWR F GAWR R GAWR 4,200 lbs 7,400 lbs. 4,200 lbs. 8,200 lbs. LT215/85R16D LT215/85R16D LT215/85R16D LT215/75R16D 16X6K 16K6K 16X6K 16X6K dual 58p Champion Ser No. 5573241F1984

May be completed as: Multi Pur Pass Veh Truck

The Office of Fleet Administration has rejected the three buses delivered to the State by Champion Home Builders Company on grounds of noncompliance with State and Federal Regulations. * California Vehicle code, Division 12, Equipment of Vehicles Section 24002: Vehicle not Equipped or Unsafe

Section 24011: Federal Safety Standards

* Code of Federal Regulation, Title 69, Transportation 49 CFR 567.5(c) (s)(iii), Certification Label

49 CFR 578.4(4) 95). Requirements for Incomplete Vehicle Manufactur4r's

* Gross Vehicle Weight Rate in. Final stage manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages are required to affix a label to each vehicle which contains, among other statements, Gross Vehicle height Rating or GVWR" followed by the appropriat e value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds time the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

The gross vehicle weight rating posted on the certification label is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity, the incomplete Vehicle Manufacturers rating of 11,000 pounds should be applied, however, it is also out of compliance with Champion's GVWR of 12,000 pounds.

We believe that the final stage manufacturer is not in compliance with the aforementioned regulations and instructions provided by the incomplete Vehicle manufacturer.

Please advise us or your legal opinion and interpretation of the regulations we have discussed

Sincerely,

Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services

Attachments

cc: George William

California Highway Patrol Motor Carrier Section

Tom McCauley Office of procurement

ID: nht87-2.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Major Harry A. Crytzer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Major Harry A. Crytzer Bureau of Patrol Pennsylvania State Police l800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110

Dear Mr. Crytzer: .

This responds to your letter to our office and a telephone call between Trooper Monko of your department and Deirdre Hom of my staff, concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect a certain modificatio n of a school bus. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained in your letter and enclosures that the vehicle in question is a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds. The vehicle is being leased by the Governor Mifflin school district from a local dealer, Wo lfington Body Company, who bought the vehicle from the school bus manufacturer, Collins Industries. Your letter said that Collins delivered the vehicle to Wolfingiton with an extra side door "in place." The side door has provided for purposes of installi ng a wheelchair lift. You stated that Wolfington could have installed a wheelchair lift, if it had wished to do so; however, in the case at hand, Wolfington sealed the door and installed rear seats provided by Collins in the bus.

You first ask whether the school bus dealer (Wolfington) is prohibited by Federal law from sealing the side door and installing the rear seats. The answer is no. However, Federal law does impose limitations on the modifications that may be made. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) states:

No manufacturer, distributed, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an app licable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Section lO8(a)(2l(A) prohibits Wolfington from either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with applicable Federal safety standards. Thus, the school bus dealer cannot seal the door i f the door had been installed on the vehicle to meet the requirements for emergency exits found in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In the case you describe, the school bus Has provided with a rear emergency door which presumably satis fies Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. If the school bus is able to meet the requirements of the standard notwithstanding the sealed side door, then there is no "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the school bus em ergency exit requirements.

Nevertheless, Wolfington must ensure that no other safety design or item of equipment installed pursuant to applicable Federal safety standards was rendered inoperative by its modifications. For instance, the performance of the fuel system must be mainta ined to the level required by Standard No. 301, Fuel System integrity. Similarly, Wolfington must ensure that the seats previously certified to Standard No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, maintained their levels of performance.

Trooper Monko requested information on the Federal requirements applying to Collins and Wolfington, if Collins had delivered the school bus with the door sealed to Wolfington, the purchaser, and Wolfington had installed the lift and removed the rearmost seats. Wolfington is subject to the "render inoperative" provisions of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act in this situation, just as it is in the situation discussed earlier. Thus, Wolfington must ensure that its modifications do not negatively affect the c ompliance of safety equipment and designs with Federal safety standards. Notably, the fuel system and seats on the school bus must continue to meet the applicable safety standards.

We note that a different set of our regulations would apply if wolfington had obtained a new school bus from Collins to resell it to a school district. These regulations apply to the alteration of new vehicles, and impose certification responsibilities o n dealers modifying new vehicles. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested in those regulations.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 29, 1986

Deidre Hom, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

It has been requested of cur office by Trooper Barry J. Jozwiak, Troop "L", Reading, to provide clarification for the Pennsylvania State Police school bus inspection on the subject of rendering inoperable an additional service door on a school bus. The v ehicle when manufactured offers a dual option to the vehicle owner for use as either a special education or normal school bus. The selected use of the school bus can be converted to the owner's transportation needs at anytime by adding or deleting certai n school bus body items.

Would any Federal Statute or Regulation prohibit the dealer or owner from rendering this extra service door inoperable?

This supplements the conversation on August 8, 1986, between you and Trooper Thomas J. Monko of my staff. As requested, the attachments are forwarded for your information.

Should you have additional questions or require further clarification, phone contact, Trooper Thomas J. Monko at (717) 783-5517.

Sincerely, Harry A Crytzer Major Bureau of Patrol

SUBJECT: Service door on school bus To: C. O. Troop "L", Reading, Pa. 4310 FROM: Tpr. Barry J. JOZWIAK, Troop "L", Reading 4310

This officer inspected a 1985 Ford School Bus, VIN#1FDJE34H5FHCl29969, Pa. Reg. SB17235, COLLINS Body; 21 Passenger (including driver) with mileage 15,742, While inspecting this vehicle it was determined that an additional service door had been installed on the right side of the vehicle at the rear. This door is usually used with buses that have lift gates in them for transporting students in wheel chairs, however, this bus does not have the lift gate. It does have seats throughout the bus. The door itself is not operable. This officer feels the doo r should be operable. GVW is 9300.

This bus is currently in use by Governor Mifflin School District, Shillington, Berks Co. Pa. The bus is on the buy-back program with WOLFINGTON Body Co., Eagle, Pa. A check with Mr. Ralph BROWN OF WOLFINGTON advised they when they order these type of veh icles they order them with the extra side door in order for the buses to be used for dual purposes. One for lift gate wheel chair use and the other for normal transportation with the door secured shut. BROWN advised there are approx 3 other buses being u sed for 1986 with the door secured shut. All others have lift gates in them.

The door is located on the right rear corner of the bus. The side rub rail is located on the right side and travels up to the rear door and stops. Another rub rail is then installed approx. 2/3 or the door and stops just past the door opening where it is secured through the pillar post with 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts. The door handle is on the outside of the door and is locked with a key. The inside or the door has a latch assembly that when the handle is turned to lock, The latch assy. travels up to th e roof or the bus and down to the floor of the bus. In this bus the latch assy. is in the open position. The key was inserted into the lock to unlock the latch, but the handle does not turn. There is a chair rail located on the inside the bus that the se ats are mounted onto on the right side of the seat. At the rear door the seats are bolted to the floor with 4 lag seats with 4 bolts in each leg. They are not attached to the chair angle rail. The chair angle rail is not attached to the door, however it is secured before the door and also with one of the carriage bolts that go through the pillar posts from the outside.

Mr. Ron PETERS, COLLINS INDUSTRIES, Hutchinson, Kansas, was contacted 1-800-835-5007 and he advised that they have made these types of vehicles for many years and that they are for dual purpose, He feels the bus is stronger with the door rather than the conventional side due to the additional structure installed for the door.

These buses are built to ordering specs and can be made with or without the side door. The bus in question is an original equipment installation. When the bus is delivered to the distributor the door is in place without the lift assy, and the rear seats are not belted to the floor. It is the dealers option to use the vehicle as he see the need, and either install the lift assy, or the seats, The only thing that actually holds the door shut is the 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts that go through the rub rail a nd the pillar post. The inside latch assy. should also hold the door shut.

This officer feels this door should function for the following reasons; 1- Pa Insp regulations 175.110, (a), (7), (vi) (c) indicate doors must function. 2- The door is equipped with an outside handle giving the appearance to the general public that this is a door. In the event of an accident a person might waste time trying to open a door that cannot be opened. 3- There are no labels placed on the door that advise door not operable. 4- The only things that actually keep the door secured is 1 rub rail th at only crosses approx. 2/3 of the bus door and 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts that go through the rub rail & into the pillar post.

Tpr. Tom MONTKO, Bureau of Patrol, discussed this with this officer and advised to inspect the vehicle for use at this time and to submit this letter along with photos of the vehicle in order to secure a legal opinion from Penn Dot and the Nat'l Safety T ransportation Board.

School Bus inspection regulations 171.50 indicate service doors and emergency doors. School Bus regulations 171.103 and 171.104 address special service entrance and special service entrance doors on vehicles with power lifts.

Photos of the bus attached.

Respectfully Submitted, Tpr. Barry J. JOZWIAK

ID: nht87-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Laurel Osborne -- Regional Coordinator, National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Laurel Osborne Regional Coordinator National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses P.O. Box 225 Galena, Alaska 99741

Dear Ms. Osborne:

This responds to your January 29, 1987 letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, asking about our agency's position on safety belt use in small school buses (i.e., school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less). Your letter has been referred to me for reply.

In your letter, you explain that you and the Alaska School Bus Safety Committee are interested in Alaska's implementation of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. You request clarification of NHTSA's position on safety belt use in small school buses because members of the committee believe that safety belts are provided on those buses only for the use of special education students. You also request information on safety belt education programs that schools could use to enc ourage the proper use of safety belts by student passengers in small school buses.

As you might know, NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. One of these safety standards is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bun Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which required the safety belts for passengers on small school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, includes Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 and relates to the use of School vehicles. Because requirements for the use of school buses are set by the states, Standard No. 17 sets forth recommendation s to the station for the pupil transportation aspect of their highway safety programs. We encourage states to consider Standard No. 17's recommendations but do not insist on compliance with every aspect of the standard.

As you are aware, NHTSA does not believe that a Federal requirement for safety belts on large school buses (GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) is necessary because large school buses are very safe vehicles due to their mass, seating configuration and "comp artmentalized" seating positions. However, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, Passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities. Of course, the belts o n small school buses provide safety benefits only if they are properly used. We thus recommend they be used by all pupils whenever the children are transported. This recommendation is consistent with Program Standard No. 17, which states, "Passengers in Type II school vehicles equipped with lap belts shall be required to wear them whenever the vehicle is in motion." (IV.C.3.d(5).)

With regard to your question about belt education programs, NHTSA and the National PTA have put together a "Safety Belt A/V Resource Kit" and a "Children's Training Kit" as part of our 1986 safety belt awareness campaign. The kit contains materials geare d toward increasing safety belt use by children in passenger cars, and might be helpful in promoting belt usage in small school buses. I am sending you the resource kits by separate cover.

Further, some states have developed their own safety belt education program; for school children. The person in your state who might be able to provide you with more information on the programs available in Alaska is:

Ms. Romayne Kareen Pupil Transportation Officer Pouch F State Office Building Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-2890

Also, enclosed in this letter is a February 1986 NHTSA report entitled, "School Bus Safety Belts: Their Use, Carryover Effects and Administrative Issues." The report describes an exploratory study of the experiences of various school districts with safet y belt programs for school buses. You might find the discussion of administrative and educational components of bus belt programs helpful.

I hope this information is of assistance. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

P.O. Box 225 Galena, Alaska January 20. 1987

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Felrice:

I have been trying to work with the Alaska School Bus Safety Committee in an effort to implement Standard 17 in the State of AlasKa. Members of this committee feel that seatbelts are provided on small school buses only for the use of special education st udents.

In one school district the belts are buckled under the seats when the buses ate used on regular routes. In another district students must buckle up only if they have been misbehaving. The contractor reports a high rate of belt vandalism in this district.

I would appreciate a clarification concerning NHTSA s position on seatbelt use in small school buses. I would also appreciate any suggestions on seatbelt education programs which could be used in schools to encourage the responsible use of belts by stude nts in their small buses. Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours. Laurel Osborne, Regional Coordinator National Coalition For Seatbelts on School Buses

ID: nht87-2.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/87

FROM: S. T. MESSINA, -- NJ DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

TO: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING INC.

TITLE: COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGER MC 157-87

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K BROCK; RED BOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM TERRY K. BROCK TO STEVE KRATZKE RE CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE 217, OCC-1009; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K. BROC K TO SEBASTIAN MESSINA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brock,

This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987 pertaining to emergency escape areas.

Parts 393.61, 393.62 and 393.63 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require that emergency exits comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217. The escape areas are to be through windows of a push out type. The ordinary opening o f a window for ventilation should not be included due to possible jamming.

The front entrance door cannot be considered since the intent of the regulations is to provide emergency escape through push out windows and roof escape hatches.

I hope that we have been of assistance.