ID: aiam0564

Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of November 29, 1971, requesting ou concurrence on three opinions you have furnished to the Recreational Vehicle Institute concerning the application of Part 567, 'Certification,' and Part 568, 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages,' to certain recreational vehicles. The opinions, each the subject of a separate letter from you to Mr. Phillip N. Shrake of RVI, are discussed separately below:; >>>1. Your first letter, dated November 18, 1971, concerns th possibility that travel trailers may be 'vehicles manufactured in two or more stages,' and subject to Part 568 and the appropriate sections of Part 567, if an 'assemblage' is purchased from a supplier for completion, as opposed to when only individual component parts are purchased. This interpretation is correct. Travel trailers, like other vehicles, would be vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, if an assemblage consisting of at least the components specified in the definition of 'incomplete vehicle' (S568.3) is delivered to another person for completion. In addition, each of the first three 'consequences' listed on pages 2 and 3 of your letter are essentially correct. With respect to consequence number 4, the party against whom the NHTSA would proceed should a defect be discovered in a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages would depend upon which manufacturer was responsible for the defect. In most situations, however, it is the final-stage manufacturer who would be contacted first, as this would be necessary to determine whether the defect resulted from his activities or the activities of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.; 2. Your second letter, dated November 22, 1971, takes the position tha Part 568 applies to the situation where a completed panel or automobile type truck is modified into a motor home. This analysis is incorrect. The definition of incomplete vehicle in Part 568 (S568.3) specifies that such a vehicle 'requires further manufacturing . . . to become a completed vehicle. This is not the same as modifying one completed vehicle into another, the case you describe. In such a situation the issue is only whether sufficient modifications are made to the original truck to consider the one who modifies it a manufacturer in his own right. As the type of vehicle is being changed, as you state, from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, this question would most likely be answered in the affirmative. In such a case, the manufacturer of the motor home bears full responsibility for compliance with all applicable standards, and stands in the same relationship to the truck manufacturer as all vehicle manufacturers stand to their suppliers when components that must meet standards are involved. The burden would be on the modifying manufacturer to show that his modification did not affect the base vehicle's compliance with a standards, if a nonconformity were discovered. The same reasoning would apply in determining responsibility for safety related defects.; 3. Your third letter of November 29, 1971, discusses two issues. Th first is whether GVWR for trailers should include weight specified for each designated seating position. Based on the definitions of 'designated seating capacity' and 'designated seating position' in 49 CFR 571.3 you conclude that as State laws generally provide that occupants cannot ride in a trailer, the GVWR should not include a figure for each designated seating position. You amplify this with regard to fifth-wheel trailers, stating that if any State allows persons to ride in such trailers, then the appropriate weight for each designated seating position should be included.<<<; Whether or not a trailer has 'designated seating position' depends upo the manufacturer's intention in designating the trailer. If a manufacturer does not include designated seating positions, whether or not due to State law, then such weights need not be included in the gross vehicle weight rating.; Your second question is whether the hitch or tongue weight is to b included in establishing GVWR. This question was answered in our letter of January 4, 1972.; Finally, with reference to inclusion of specific fluids in determinin various weights, those fluids such as water, etc., used in recreational vehicles for purposes other than vehicle operation are considered to be cargo.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-3.12

DATE: 01/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 10, 1973, in which you asked whether State "user laws" that prohibit the sale or operation of a motor vehicle without seat belts would be preempted by Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to the extent that the standard allows vehicles to be manufactured with other types of restraint.

The position of this agency is that section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), requires State laws or rules that have the effect of regulating vehicle design or equipment to be identical to any Federal motor vehicle safety standards governing the same aspects of performance, whether the State rules are phrased as regulating manufacture, sale, or operation.

ID: aiam2526

Dear Mr. Premo: This responds to your February 8, 1977, question whether the use of front-row two-passenger bench seat with a three-passenger seat back requires a forward restraining barrier for two or three designated seating positions according to the requirements of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; The NHTSA answered this question on February 22, 1977, in response to request for an interpretation from Blue Bird Body Company. I am enclosing a copy of that interpretation for your information. You will note that Blue Bird accomplished the modification of the front-row seat by the installation of a two-passenger bench seat. As the interpretation indicates, the NHTSA requires a restraining barrier only in front of designated seating positions.; You also ask what procedure is required to obtain approval from th NHTSA for a particular Front-row seat design. Although the agency does not give formal 'approval' of designs, it is willing to give an opinion as to whether your design appears to satisfy the requirements of the standard. We require that you submit full detail (including pictures if possible) of the proposed design. In particular, we would like to know how you intend to render the excess 13 inches of frame permanently inoperative as a seating position. We would also be interested to know why you cannot install a two-passenger bench seat to obviate the problem of excess seat frame.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 7307-2

Mr. William E. Lawler
Manager, Specifications
Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.
18881 U.S. 31 North
P.O. Box 408
Westfield, Indiana 46074-0408

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1992, concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your questions concern a final rule published on December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63682) clarifying the definition of "seat belt anchorage." That final rule had the effect of requiring seat belt attachment hardware, which previously was not included within the definition of "seat belt anchorage," to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 210. Your five questions are addressed below.

The first three questions refer to a safety belt design which incorporates a retractor.

l. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool?

The use of test harnesses for Standard No. 210 testing was permitted in a final rule published April 30, 1990, and effective September 1, 1992. More specifically, the final rule specified that "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" be used to transfer the test loads from the body block to the anchorages during the Standard No. 210 compliance tests. The amended standard also specifies that the attachment of this material should "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing.

The amended definition of "seat belt anchorage" explicitly states that the seat belt anchorage is

any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the retractor spool breaks during a crash, the safety belt will not remain attached to the vehicle. Therefore, the retractor spool is a part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, and, under the definition set forth above, is part of the seat belt anchorage. If a test harness is used, it must be attached such that the retractor spool is tested as part of the seat belt anchorage. The harness may not be attached directly to the retractor frame, since the retractor spool would not be tested in that instance.

2. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool?

As stated previously, Standard No. 210 specifies use of "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" for Standard No. 210 tests. For compliance tests, NHTSA's preference is to use the original safety belt webbing whenever possible. When this cannot be done, due to elongation or breakage of the original webbing, NHTSA's first choice is to attach substitute webbing or other material to the original webbing near the anchorage. If the substitute material cannot be attached to the original webbing, NHTSA would attach the substitute webbing directly to the retractor spool. If the substitute webbing cannot be inserted into the spool in the same manner as the original webbing, attaching the substitute webbing around the spool would most closely duplicate the geometry of the original webbing.

3. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209.

The strength requirement in S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that anchorages must withstand certain forces when tested under specified conditions. Under S4.2.3, permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. If breakage of the locking mechanism (a part of the anchorage because it is "involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure") caused separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, such breakage would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test, as the anchorage would not have withstood the test forces. However, if the locking mechanism broke or released during the test without allowing the webbing to separate from the vehicle structure, the agency would not consider it a failure of the strength requirement test, since the belt would still be anchored to the vehicle structure.

4. A commonly used design is the "cable buckle". The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210; separation of the cable from the ferrule would not constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210.

In the December 5, 1991 final rule, the agency stated that "the definition of seat belt anchorage included only the attachment points of the seat belt, and not the webbing, straps, or similar device, or the buckles which comprise the seat belt itself." For this design, the cable is a "similar device" to seat belt webbing, and would be considered part of the seat belt, not the anchorage. If the cable broke, the agency would consider that an incomplete test, just like breakage of webbing. However, it would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test if the cable pulled out of the ferrule, since such pulling out would result from a failure of the ferrule rather than a broken cable.

5. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly.

The answer to this question is yes. As stated previously, buckles are part of the seat belt, not the anchorage, and therefore, are not subject to the strength requirement of Standard No. 210.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:210 d:7/23/92

ID: nht92-5.12

DATE: July 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William E. Lawler -- Manager, Specifications, Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/92 from William E. Lawler to Mary Versailles (OCC 7307)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1992, concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your questions concern a final rule published on December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63682) clarifying the definition of "seat belt anchorage." That final rule had the effect of requiring seat belt attachment hardware, which previously was not included within the definition of "seat belt anchorage," to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 210. Your five questions are addressed below.

The first three questions refer to a safety belt design which incorporates a retractor.

1. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool?

The use of test harnesses for Standard No. 210 testing was permitted in a final rule published April 30, 1990, and effective September 1, 1992. More specifically, the final rule specified that "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" be used to transfer the test loads from the body block to the anchorages during the Standard No. 210 compliance tests. The amended standard also specifies that the attachment of this material should "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing.

The amended definition of "seat belt anchorage" explicitly states that the seat belt anchorage is

any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the retractor spool breaks during a crash, the safety belt will not remain attached to the vehicle. Therefore, the retractor spool is a part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, and, under the definition set forth above, is part of the seat belt anchorage. If a test harness is used, it must be attached such that the retractor spool is tested as part of the seat belt anchorage. The harness may not be attached directly to the retractor frame, since the retractor spool would not be tested in that instance.

2. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool?

As stated previously, Standard No. 210 specifies use of "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment" for Standard No. 210 tests. For compliance tests, NHTSA's preference is to use the original safety belt webbing whenever possible. When this cannot be done, due to elongation or breakage of the original webbing, NHTSA's first choice is to attach substitute webbing or other material to the original webbing near the anchorage. If the substitute material cannot be attached to the original webbing, NHTSA would attach the substitute webbing directly to the retractor spool. If the substitute webbing cannot be inserted into the spool in the same manner as the original webbing, attaching the substitute webbing around the spool would most closely duplicate the geometry of the original webbing.

3. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209.

The strength requirement in S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that anchorages must withstand certain forces when tested under specified conditions. Under S4.2.3, permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. If breakage of the locking mechanism (a part of the anchorage because it is "involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure") caused separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, such breakage would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test, as the anchorage would not have withstood the test forces. However, if the locking mechanism broke or released during the test without allowing the webbing to separate from the vehicle structure, the agency would not consider it a failure of the strength requirement test, since the belt would still be anchored to the vehicle structure.

4. A commonly used design is the "cable buckle". The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210; separation of the cable from the ferrule would not constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210.

In the December 5, 1991 final rule, the agency stated that "the definition of seat belt anchorage included only the attachment points of the seat belt, and not the webbing, straps, or similar device, or the buckles which comprise the seat belt itself." For this design, the cable is a "similar device" to seat belt webbing, and would be considered part of the seat belt, not the anchorage. If the cable broke, the agency would consider that an incomplete test, just like breakage of webbing. However, it would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test if the cable pulled out of the ferrule, since such pulling out would result from a failure of the ferrule rather than a broken cable.

5. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly.

The answer to this question is yes. As stated previously, buckles are part of the seat belt, not the anchorage, and therefore, are not subject to the strength requirement of Standard No. 210.

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

ID: 571.205 Plexiglass Barriers (002)

Mr. Mike Collingwood

Illinois Department of Transportation

2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Room 305

Springfield, IL 62764                       

August 11, 2020

Dear Mr. Collingwood:

This responds to your two inquiries to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about the installation of barriers in school buses to minimize the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In your June 16, 2020 email, you ask about the installation of “plexiglass barriers” installed to the right of, and behind, the driver’s seating position. In a later email, you ask about the installation of clear plastic “soft shields” that would be installed to the immediate right of and behind the driver, and/or installed throughout the passenger compartment by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. As explained below, NHTSA’s regulations would permit the installation of the barriers, subject to the requirements discussed in this letter.

Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email. This interpretation letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law, and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your email at the time of signature.

Background 

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects.

Based on your description of the barriers and the photos you provided, the plexiglass material of the barrier and transparent flexible material of the shield would be motor vehicle “glazing” that must comply with FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing materials.” FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles prior to first purchase and to aftermarket glazing for use in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the “American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard” (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing, called “Items,” and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. As motor vehicle glazing, the transparent material of the barrier or shield must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and be certified as meeting that standard by the prime glazing manufacturer, and, if applicable, the manufacturer or distributor who cuts the glazing into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. If an entity, in assembling the barrier or shield, cuts the glazing, it must ensure the glazing meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, and must certify its compliance pursuant to S6.3 of FMVSS No. 205.1 Anyone who assembles and markets an aftermarket barrier or shield would be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and be responsible for ensuring the product is free from safety-related defects. If the assembler or NHTSA finds the product to contain a safety-related defect, the assembler would be responsible for conducting a recall campaign as required under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120. 

Discussion 

Plexiglass Barriers. You ask about plexiglass barriers installed in school buses to the right of and just behind the driver. Assuming the barriers are comprised of plexiglass (or similarly rigid transparent material), NHTSA would consider them to be “interior partitions.”2 This classification is important as it, along with the location of the glazing in the vehicle, determines which types of glazing may be used.

Depending upon where the glazing is placed, it may be considered “requisite for driving visibility” and subject to heightened requirements. On buses, the windows deemed requisite for driving visibility are windows to the immediate right or left of the driver and the front windshield.3 (Any portion of glazing that the driver would have to see through to view the windows requisite for driving visibility would also be considered requisite for driving visibility.) You describe the barriers as being located to the right of the driver and immediately behind the driver. Of these locations, only the first would be considered requisite for driving visibility on buses.

Glazing for interior partitions on buses in areas requisite for driving visibility must be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B. This means the part of the barrier to the right of the driver must be of the items listed above.  Interior partitions in areas not requisite for driving visibility have additional compliance options, and may also be made of one of following types of glazing: Items 3, 5, 11B, 12, 13, 16A, or 16B. This means the part of the partition immediately behind the driver may be any of the above items.

1On the other hand, if the entity only assembles the barrier using pre-cut glazing that has been certified by a glazing manufacturer, it is not required to certify the glazing.

2 See letter to Ms. Lee Ann Sparks, (June 4, 2020) available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571-205- Driver%20Shield%20for%20Buses%20and%20Vans_final%20signed%20(002).htm.

3 In a letter to Cris Morgan (January 14, 2009), NHTSA concluded that low-level glazing on doors to the right or left of the driver are considered windows that are requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, glazing through which the driver would view these windows would be considered requisite for driving visibility. https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/08-004149--19%20Nov%2008--sa.htm.

Soft Shields. You ask about “soft shields” installed in school buses that would be installed to the right of and behind the driver or installed in the passenger compartment by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. Based on photos of the soft shields, and assuming they are comprised of flexible transparent material, NHTSA would consider them to be “flexible curtains.” Again, this classification is important for FMVSS No. 205, as it, along with the location of the glazing in the vehicle, determines which types of glazing may be used.

The photos you provide show that the shields would be installed to the right of the driver or immediately behind the driver, and/or installed between each row of seats by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. Of these locations, only the location to the right of the driver would be considered requisite for driving visibility.

Glazing for flexible curtains on buses in areas requisite for driving visibility must be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 6, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B. This means the soft shield to the right of the driver must be of the items listed above. However, although these Items of glazing are permitted for use as flexible curtains, the only appropriate Item for the pliable plastic shown in the photos may be Item 6. Some of the requirements for certain Items may necessitate a level of rigidity that a soft plastic cannot provide. Some Items of glazing, such as Item 6, have requirements that were designed specifically for flexible plastics.

Glazing for flexible curtains in buses in areas not requisite for driving visibility must be one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11A, 11B, 11C, 12, 13, 14, 15A, 15B, 16A, or 16B. Accordingly, the part of the flexible curtain for any location behind the driver and in the passenger compartment must be of these items. Of these permissible Items of glazing, Items 6, 7, and 13 may be the only appropriate ones for the soft, pliable plastic shown in the photos you provide. Soft, pliable glazing may not be able to meet the requirements for certain Items of glazing because they do not provide a level of rigidity that is necessary for meeting some of the requirements. However, Items 6, 7, and 13, have requirements that were designed specifically for flexible plastics.

Other requirements. There may be additional requirements applying to the installation of the partition or curtain (“glazing”) depending on the entity installing it. If the glazing is installed on a new bus prior to first vehicle sale for purposes other than resale, the installer must ensure that, with the glazing installed, the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 205 and all other applicable FMVSS, and must certify the vehicle as complying with all FMVSS affected by the installation. If the glazing is installed as aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business, that entity would be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits the entity from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

In both cases, the entity installing the glazing must ensure that installation of the partition does not: (1) take the vehicle out of compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 222, “School bus passenger seating and crash protection;” (2) impact the vehicle’s compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 302, “Flammability of interior materials;” (3) prevent the driver and passengers from readily accessing emergency exits installed in compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 217, “Bus emergency exits and window retention and release;” (4) obstruct the driver’s view of the mirrors and/or rearview image required under FMVSS No. 111, “Rear visibility;” or (5) impede the driver’s ability to see through the windows needed for driving visibility. Visibility is particularly important for school buses, as not only are school buses engaged in the transportation of children, they also make frequent stops. Installers should ensure that installation of a partition or curtain, particularly one situated in an area requisite for driving visibility, does not create glare or otherwise reduce the driver’s ability to see embarking and disembarking students and other road users.

Regarding how the installation of the glazing affects compliance with FMVSS No. 222’s head protection requirements, S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 222 establishes head protection requirements for “contactable surfaces” within the head protection zone defined by S5.3.1.1. The head protection zone is determined based on seating references points. This means that each seat in a school bus has its own head impact protection zone. As an example, a partition that is installed directly behind the driver is likely to fall within the head protection zone for the seat directly behind the driver. Partitions installed to the right of the driver may also partially fall within the head protection zones for the seat directly behind the driver.

If the partition is installed prior to first purchase, the installer must ensure that the vehicle will meet FMVSS No. 222 with the glazing installed. If the head impact protection requirements cannot be met for that first row of seats with the partition installed, the installer might have to remove the first row and move the FMVSS No. 222 restraining barrier rearward such that the bus provides proper compartmentalization for what would be the new (reconfigured) first row. This modification would ensure that the partition is no longer within the head protection zone of any of the school bus seats.

If the partition is installed after first purchase by an entity subject to the make inoperative provision in 49 U.S.C. 30122, the installer may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the school bus pursuant to FMVSS No. 222. School buses are required to have passenger seating systems designed to afford impact protection to occupants. Installation of the partition may affect this element of design (compartmentalization) for the front row of seats by impairing the seat’s head impact protection. To avoid this result, the installer may need to remove the first row of seats and move the FMVSS No. 222 restraining barrier rearward such that the bus provides proper compartmentalization for what would be the new (reconfigured) first row.

Entities modifying their own school buses are not subject to Federal restrictions on “making inoperative” the safety systems on their vehicles. However, NHTSA recommends that owners not degrade the safety systems provided on their vehicles. Thus, we recommend that schools take measures to ensure that students will not occupy seats that have compromised head protection zones. For example, if a school installs a partition that will be in the head impact zone, the school can mitigate risk by not allowing students to sit in those first-row seats.

It appears from the photos you sent that the flexible curtain is a “soft shield” made from pliable plastic. Even though the curtains would likely fall within the head protection zones when installed forward of each passenger seat, it does not appear to have an adverse effect on school bus compliance with FMVSS No. 222’s head protection requirements.

In addition to the above, please note that the installation of the barrier may be subject to State laws or regulations. School bus operators should contact their local highway safety office for information governing how school children should be transported.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.08.11 15:21:29

-04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/11/20

Ref: FMVSS No.205

ID: aiam5520

"Dear Mr. Warlick: This responds to your fax asking about the meanin of 'designated seating position' for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You noted that the RVIA Handbook, dated April 23, 1991, states that 'it is the NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations.' You asked whether this statement is still in effect, and, if so, where you can find it in the Code of Federal Regulations. You also asked what defined area makes up one sleeping position. This will confirm that it continues to be NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations. This position is based on the definition of 'designated seating position,' which is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Under that definition, the question of whether a position in a vehicle constitutes a designated seating position is dependent in part on whether the position 'is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion.' If a manufacturer designs a vehicle to sleep a particular number of persons, e.g., six persons, it is logical to assume that those six persons will ride in the vehicle to their sleeping destination. Therefore, there must be at least six designated seating positions in the vehicle. A more complete discussion of this issue is presented on p. 23234 of the enclosed Federal Register notice (Final rule amending the definition of 'designated seating position,' April 19, 1979). We do not have a definition of what area makes up one sleeping position. NHTSA would consider all available information to determine the number of sleeping positions in a vehicle. This would include the size of the sleeping accommodations, e.g., whether an area is large enough to accommodate more than one person, and advertising by the manufacturer and dealers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 1985-01.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mandan Public School District

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 3, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the use of Greyhound-type buses to transport school children to school-related activities. You stated that the Mandan Public School District is considering purchasing 1963 and 1965 model year Greyhound-type buses for the purposes of transporting elementary and secondary students to activity events. Your first question asked whether this would be allowed under our regulations on school buses.

To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect Mandan's choice of buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, window and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If Mandan had planned to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Since Mandan plans to buy 1963 and 1965 model year buses, however, the Vehicle Safety Act standards do not apply. There is nothing under that Act to prevent Mandan from buying a bus that was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus safety standards for school use. There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if North Dakota has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked "School Bus." We have ruled that the States should apply these specifications to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 has no direct effect on Mandan's purchase of 1963 and 1965 model year buses. HSPS 17 will affect Mandan only if North Dakota has adopted it and if North Dakota accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If North Dakota chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

Having said this, however, I would like to restate the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of the Greyhound-type buses, but it has safety features that the Greyhound-type buses that you are considering lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. These are features that Mandan should consider before it decides to buy a Greyhound-type bus.

Your second question asked whether Mandan may charter Greyhound-type buses from a common carrier to transport students to school-related events.

Again, Mandan would not be precluded from chartering Greyhound-type buses if North Dakota has not adopted our view that the specifications of HSPS 17 apply to activity buses.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

SINCERELY,

Mandan Public School District

December 3, 1984

Frank A. Brendt Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Mr. Brendt:

During a telephone conversation with Mr. David Soul, it was suggested that I request clarification from you on the following questions:

(A) The Mandan Public School District is considering the purchase of a 1963 and a 1965 Greyhound-type bus to transport elementary and secondary students to activity events. Is this legal and will the district be in conformance with Federal regulations? If not, what are the possible legal ramifications?

(B) May the Mandan Public School District charter buses from a common carrier who uses the same vehicles (Greyhound-type), to transport elementary and secondary students to activity type functions? If not, why, and what are the legal ramifications if we do?

Thank you for your prompt response.

Gordon G. Berge Business Administrator Mandan Public School District

ID: nht87-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable John P. Murtha

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable John P. Murtha Member of Congress Post Office Box Johnstown, PA 15907

Dear Mr. Murtha:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, which has been referred to me for a response. In an addendum enclosed with your letter, you note that one of your constituents, Mr. Gene Bird, would like inf ormation on the Federal regulations addressing "completing the finishing work on automobiles." Apparently, another manufacturer would send small sports cars to Mr. Bird's business. Your addendum states that these sports cars "will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safet y Act also specifies that the manufacturer itself must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approve" any vehicle s or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all. The Safety Act only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manuf acturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards. We would certainly recommend that a new manufacturer test some of its vehicles for compliance with the applicable safety standards.

It is not entirely clear from your addendum whether Mr. Bird would be classified as an "alterer" or a "final stage manufacturer" under our regulations. His company would be considered an "alterer" of motor vehicles, if the second company referred to in y our addendum furnishes completed and certified sports cars to Mr. Bird's company, and Mr. Bird's company changes the engine and other components on those vehicles. If this is the contemplated action, Mr. Bird's company would be treated as an alterer unde r our regulations.

The certification requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 CFR S567.7 (copy enclosed). Generally speaking, that section requires a person who alters a vehicle before its first purchase to supplement the certification label affixed by the original ma nufacturer with its own certification label. The alterer's certification label must include all of the information set forth in Part 567, including a statement that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date t he vehicle was altered. In the case of sports cars, an alterer must certify that the altered car complies with all of the following:

49 CFR S571.101 Controls and Displays; 49 CFR S571.102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence; 49 CFR S571.103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems; 49 CFR S571.104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems; 49 CFR S571.105 Hydraulic Brake Systems; 49 CFR S571.106 Brake Hoses; 49 CFR S571.107 Reflecting Surfaces: 49 CFR S571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; 49 CFR S571.110 Tire Selection and Rims; 49 CFR S571.111 Rearview Mirrors; 49 CFR S571.112 Headlamp Concealment Devices; 49 CFR S571.113 Hood Latch System; 49 CFR S571.114 Theft Protection; 49 CFR S571.115 Vehicle Identification Number; 49 CFR S571.116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids; 49 CFR S571.118 Power-operated Window Systems; 49 CFR S571.124 Accelerator Control Systems; 49 CFR S571.201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts; 49 CFR S571.202 Head Restraints; 49 CFR S571.203 Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Column; 49 CFR S571.204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement; 49 CFR S571.205 Glazing Materials; 49 CFR S571.206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 49 CFR S571.207 Seating Systems; 49 CFR S571.208 Occupant Crash Protection; 49 CFR S571.209 Seat Belt Assemblies; 49 CFR S571.210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; 49 CFR S571.211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps; 49 CFR S571.212 Windshield Mounting; 49 CFR S571.214 Side Door Strength; 49 CFR S571.216 Roof Crush Resistance; 49 CFR S571.219 Windshield Zone Intrusion; 49 CFR S571.301 Fuel System Integrity; and 49 CFR S571.302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

Alternatively, Mr. Bird's company may be treated as a "final stage manufacturer," as that term is defined at 49 CFR S568.4. A final stage manufacturer means a person who finishes the manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle. Thus, if the second company referred to in your addendum is planning to furnish Mr. Bird's company with sports cars that have no engine, radiator, and so forth, the vehicles provided to Mr. Bird's company would be considered "incomplete vehicles" and Mr. Bird's company woul d be considered a "final stage manufacturer."

If this is the case, Mr. Bird's certification responsibilities depend on the information he is provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle; i.e., the second company referred to in your addendum. Part 568 (copy enclosed) requires the manufactur er of the incomplete vehicle to furnish Mr. Bird's company with a document that states one of three things for the incomplete vehicle. These are:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

If Mr. Bird receives such a document and does not make any of the specified alterations, his company could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final stage manufacturer.

If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his situation will be very similar to that described above. That is, if his company follows the specific conditions, it could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Again, Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.

3. Conformity with some or all of the standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his company would be required to certify compliance with the standards identified in the document on its own. This type of document would put Mr. Bird's company in the same position as an alterer for the listed standards.

I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and the National highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that may apply and explains how to get copies of our regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact this office.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

JUNE 19 1987 The Honorable John P. Murtha Member, U.S. House of Representatives Post Office Box 180 Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15907

Dear Mr. Murtha:

Thank you for your letter concerning an inquiry from your constituent, Mr. Gene Bird.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely, Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Mr. David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Affairs U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

The attached communication from my constituent is submitted for your earnest consideration.

Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward to me information on which I may base a proper reply.

Your early action and advice will be appreciated.

With every good wish,

Sincerely, JOHN P. MURTHA Member of Congress JPM/jm Enclosure

P.S. Please send reply to:

The Honorable John P. Murtha Member of Congress Post Office Box 780 Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15907

ATTN: Jean McAleer

Phone no. (814) 535-2642, FTS 723-9241 or 9370

Inquiry made by phone personal visit TIME: DATE: 6-05-87 Name Gene Bird Classic Motor Works Address 100 Station Street Town Johnstown, PA Zip 15905 Telephone number 814 288-6911 Social Security number Veterans Claim Number COMMENTS: (Please explain only)

Mr. Bird would appreciate the federal stipulations governing completing the finishing work on automobiles.

He said another company would like to do business with him. They will send small sports cars to his business which will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested.

ID: Mr_ Richard Hardesty