ID: 11801-5.PJA

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your April 1, 1996, letter seeking clarification about some conclusions contained in an interpretation dated March 20, 1996 from this office to Mr. Tom Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You have correctly identified statements in the March 20, 1996, letter to Mr. Turner that should be corrected.

In the March 20 letter, we state that voluntarily installed left side emergency exit doors do not have to meet the location requirements of S5.2.3.2. You agree with that position. However, the March 20 letter then states:

voluntarily installed side exit doors would still be subject to prohibitions and requirements that apply to side exit doors generally. For example, S5.2.3.2(a)(4) prohibits installing two side exit doors "in whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space." In addition, section S5.2.3.2(a)(1) requires "each" side exit door to be hinged on its forward side (not merely those doors installed pursuant to Table 1).

As you point out, the scope of all the requirements of S5.2.3.2 is limited by the introductory sentence of S5.2.3.2, which states "[a]ll emergency exits required by S5.2.3.1(a) and S5.2.3.1(b) shall meet the following criteria: . . ." (emphasis added).

You are correct that the scope of S5.2.3.2's requirements is limited by S5.2.3.2's introductory sentence, and that none of the requirements of that section apply to voluntarily installed exits. To the extent that the March 20 letter stated otherwise, it was incorrect. It would be preferable if voluntary exits conform to S5.2.3.2, so that there will be no differences in hinging, spacing and location that may confuse occupants in an emergency.

This letter also clarifies another point made in the March 20, 1996 letter to Mr. Turner. We state in the third paragraph that voluntarily installed exits on school buses "should" meet the requirements of Standard No. 217, to avoid confusing occupants who may choose the exit for emergency egress. The discussion may have implied that voluntarily installed exits are excluded from Standard No. 217's requirements, which would be incorrect.

Standard No. 217 establishes requirements "for bus emergency exits." (See section S1 of the standard.) Most of the standard's requirements apply generally to all school bus emergency exits, without regard to whether an exit is required or voluntarily installed. All the requirements that apply to exits generally, i.e., which use terms such as "each" or "any" when describing the exit to which the requirement applies, apply to voluntarily installed exits. In some instances, the standard's requirements only apply to a required school bus emergency exit (e.g., S5.5.3(a) and (c), emergency exit identification). Requirements that apply only to required exits do not apply to voluntarily installed exits.

Thank you for bringing the error to our attention. If you have further questions or concerns, please call Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Blue Bird Body Company

ref:217
d:8/1/96

NCC-20:PAtelsek:6-2992:5/1/96: revised 7/22/96

OCC# 11801.pja
cc: NCC-01 Subject/chron
NCC-20 P.Atelsek
NRM-01; NSA-01

Interp. Std. 217, Redbook (2)

A:\11801­5.PJA

ID: nht88-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: L. T. MITCHELL -- SPECIFICATION ENGINEER THOMAS BUILT BUSES, L. P.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/21/87 FROM LT MITCHELL TO ERIKA JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON FMVSS 222 ON SCHOOL BUSES WITH A GVWR OF 10,000 OR LESS, REF ENCLOSED LETTERS MR. JONES TYDINGS, THOMAS BUILT BUSES; NHTSA RESPONSE NOA-30; OCC-945; LETTER D ATED 05/11/78 FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN JR TO JAMES TYDINGS; LETTER DATED 03/10/78 FROM JAMES TYDINGS TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE FMVSS 217 - SECTION 5.2 "PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS"

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This is a response to your letter asking whether it is permissible to install only two seat belts on a 39-inch bench-seat in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less (small school bus). I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer is no.

You stated that Thomas Built Buses (Thomas) would like to accommodate certain customers who wish to have two designated seating positions on each 39-inch bench-seat installed in a small school bus "for passenger comfort reasons." Your letter sets forth a suggested rationale as to why Thomas believes such a configuration would be permissible in small school buses. First, you argued that a May 11, 1978 interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, states that Federal motor vehicle saf ety regulations do not prohibit having only two-passenger seating positions on a 39-inch bench-seat in a bus designed for adult transportation. In these circumstances, we said, a manufacturer has some discretion to decide the number of designated seatin g positions in its vehicles, but must make a good faith determination of the vehicle's passenger capacity to discourage vehicle overloading.

You reason that because the term "designated seating position" is in the Definitions section of the Federal safety standards (49 CFR @571.3), the definition applies to all safety standards. You apparently conclude that our earlier interpretation of Stan dard 217 and the definition of "designated seating position" in @571.3 permit a manufacturer to make a good faith determination respecting the number of seating positions on a school bus. Based on this conclusion, you posited two situations in which thi s reasoning might be applied.

Situation 1 was described as follows in your letter:

Thomas Built Buses interprets (the May, 1978, interpretation) to be applicable for a school bus sold to carry only high school students. We consider the use of two seat belts on a 39 inch seat to be reasonable and justified due to passenger size maki ng three passengers on one 39" seat impossible. We would honor a purchaser's request to equip these 39" seats with two belts each. Is this interpretation correct?

This interpretation is incorrect for several reasons. First, the earlier interpretation did not apply to school buses; by its own terms, it is clearly limited to buses other than school buses. Second, there is not a separate set of standards that speci fy differing requirements for school buses designed to carry high school students. In determining whether school bus standards apply to a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, the proper inquiry is whether the bus is sold to carry "primary, prep rimary, or secondary school students" to or from school or school-related events. Any vehicle that meets this definition of the term "school bus" must comply with all applicable school bus standards, regardless of whether it is designed to carry small c hildren to kindergarten or teenagers to high school.

Third, the definition of "designated seating position" and our interpretations of that term, are not relevant in determining whether a school bus bench-seat in a small school bus complies with the requirements of Standard 222. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 222 sets out a specific procedure for calculating the number of seating positions in a bench seat. That paragraph explains that the number of seating positions on a bench seat in school buses is calculated by (1) measuring the width of the bench seat i n inches, (2) dividing by 15, and (3) rounding to the nearest whole number. The value which results from this calculation (expressed by the term "W") is the basis for determining whether the seat complies with the requirements of Standard 222.

For a 39-inch bench-seat, the procedure in S4.1 shows that this seat has three seating positions. Paragraph S5(b) of Standard 222 therfore requires that this bench-seat have three seat belt assemblies installed. Therefore, if your company were to insta ll only two seat belt assemblies on a 39-inch wide bench-seat in a small school bus, you could not certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 222.

For these same reasons, your interpretation set forth in your "Situation 2" is also incorrect. Even if a customer specifically asks that only two seat belt assemblies be installed on 39-inch bench seats, Standard 222 requires your company to equip these seats with three seat belt assemblies.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: 18561graco.a

Steve Gerhart, Product Compliance Engineer
Graco Children's Products Inc.
51 S. Pine St.
P.O. Box 100
Elverson, PA 19520

Dear Mr. Gerhart:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking several questions about S5.4.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in our reply.

Section S5.4.3.2 states, in pertinent part:

S5.4.3.2 Direct restraint. Except for a child restraint system whose mass is less than 4.4 kg, . . . each Type I and lap portion of a Type II vehicle belt that is used to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when [dynamically] tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system . . .

You ask about several final rules that amended S5.4.3.2, resulting in the text quoted above. Your questions relate to whether the agency has data showing a safety problem with child restraints having masses greater than 4.4 kg, and how NHTSA would test such a restraint to the requirement of S5.4.3.2.

The following background would be helpful in answering your questions.

Background

Prior to the amendment of S5.4.3.2, that section only applied to belts that were (a) part of a child restraint system; (b) designed to restrain a child using the system; and (c) designed to attach the system to the vehicle. These belts were prohibited from imposing any load on the child, resulting from the mass of the system, during the standard's dynamic test.

In a March 16, 1994 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA proposed to expand S5.4.3.2 to apply it also to each Type I (lap) and the lap portion of a Type II (lap/shoulder) vehicle belt that is used to attach the child restraint to the vehicle. These belts, which anchor the child restraint to the vehicle, function to absorb the forces of the crash into the frame of the vehicle. In the proposal, NHTSA tentatively concluded that, to protect the restrained child from the crash forces absorbed by these belts, the belts should be prohibited from transferring those crash forces to the child.

Several persons commenting on the proposal stated that the proposal would eliminate high-back belt-positioning booster seats from the marketplace. These boosters, which have backs supporting the head, neck and back of a child, are designed to restrain the child using a vehicle's Type II (lap/shoulder) belt. Some commenters stated that all belt-positioning boosters with seat backs will impose a load on the child through the lap belt portion (as well as the shoulder belt portion) of a Type II vehicle belt. The commenters were concerned that eliminating belt-positioning boosters was undesirable because there were no data showing a safety problem, and because the boosters were believed to perform well with Type II belts. Commenters also expressed concern that it was not practical to measure the load imposed on the test dummy. Some commenters suggested retaining the proposal but excluding any booster with a mass of less than 4 kilograms (kg) from the requirement. Four (4) kg was believed to be the maximum mass of belt-positioning boosters then on the market.

In a July 6, 1995 final rule, NHTSA responded to these commenters by stating that it did not intend to prohibit belt-positioning boosters with backs, nor did the agency believe there was a sufficient safety problem to warrant prohibiting current designs of such seats. Nonetheless, NHTSA further stated that it believed that limits on belt loading should be established to keep in check the potential for injury due to overloading a child occupant, such as from a "massive seat back" on a child restraint.

The agency adopted the approach suggested by some commenters of retaining the requirement, but excluding from it any restraint with a mass of less than 4 kg. The approach was consistent with requirements in Europe and with what the agency had believed to be the U.S. market at the time. NHTSA believed there was no data showing that a child restraint with a mass less than 4 kg imposes harmful loads on a child.

Gerry Baby Products petitioned for reconsideration of the amendment. Gerry said that NHTSA's belief that all the belt-positioning seats in the U.S. have a mass less than 4 kg was incorrect. Gerry stated that it sold seats with a mass of up to 4.4 kg, and had received no report of any problems or injuries associated with loads imposed on children by the booster seats.

In a June 18, 1996 response to the petition, NHTSA increased the 4 kg limit to 4.4 kg. NHTSA had been unaware that there were boosters with a mass greater than 4 kg (no commenter to the NPRM had indicated otherwise). The agency increased the limit based on Gerry's experience which had indicated that boosters with a mass up to 4.4 kg had not imposed unsafe loads on children.

The 1995 decision to limit the potential for overloading a child from elements such as a massive seat back on a belt-positioning seat departed from a July 21, 1994 rule that first established requirements for belt-positioning seats. In the 1994 rulemaking, the agency decided not to specify limits on seat back loading. The agency believed there was a lack of data indicating a safety problem and there was no procedure for measuring loads or for determining a threshold value for the loads imposed. In the 1995 rule, the agency explained that in 1994 it had not considered that a lap belt portion of a Type II belt system could transfer crash forces to a child from the back of a belt-positioning booster seat. The agency stated that after further consideration, in the context of S5.4.3.2, it had determined that a limit on the mass of the booster seat back was warranted to avoid potential injury to the child occupant.

With this background in mind, we turn to your questions, which we have restated below. Our answers follow each question.

Discussion

You first ask about NHTSA's 1995 decision to limit the mass of the seat back of belt-positioning seats after it had initially decided against doing so in 1994. You ask:

1. Was there any testing done after this [1994] rule was issued to confirm or deny [some commenters' beliefs that NHTSA ought to limit the weight of booster seats]? What was the outcome, or where could I find this information? Does NHTSA feel that higher booster seat weight would result in higher HIC's, G forces and excursions? Would this data be available also?

NHTSA did not conduct testing to confirm or deny the views that booster seats should be restricted in weight to limit overloading the child occupant. At the time of the rulemaking, and continuing to today, there are no test dummies that can reliably measure abdominal loading, nor is there an established injury criterion that correlates abdominal loads to the likelihood of injury. Also, there was, and is, no established test procedure in Standard 213 that measures seat back loads on the child dummy and that correlates those to injury. Yet, it was believed that seat back loads could, at some level, injure a child in a crash, when loads were excessive. In view of the confines at the time of the rulemaking on developing a test that would distinguish between excessive and acceptable loads on the child occupant, NHTSA adopted an alternative approach that limits loading by way of limiting the mass of the booster seat. The agency had insufficient data on which to determine whether we agreed or disagreed with the belief expressed by a commenter that increasing booster seat weights results in higher HIC's, G forces or excursions.

Your second question asks about the agency's 1995 decision to limit the potential for injury due to overloading the child from "a massive child seat back." You ask:

2. What does the agency see as massive? Is there any data or history on seats viewed as massive that injured a child due to back loading? If so, how much did the seat weigh? If there are no data, would there be an acceptable method to test the loads imposed on the back of the child, and how would threshold values be determined?

NHTSA has not identified a value above which injury could result from loading a child occupant and below which injury is not likely to occur. Yet, child restraints with a mass of less than 4.4 kg are viewed as not likely to injure, based on the field experience of Gerry Baby Products with its 4.4 kg booster seat.

We do not know of actual injuries caused by seat back loading. However, in 1996, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NHTSA conducted a rulemaking relating to excessive seat back loads in the aircraft environment (61 FR 28423, June 4, 1996)(copy enclosed). FAA sought to prohibit the use of backless boosters seats on aircraft because it believed the seats were incompatible with aircraft seats that have a "breakover" seat back. (A breakover feature allows the seat back to rotate forward easily when impacted by an occupant from behind.) FAA determined that a child dummy restrained in a backless booster seat experienced an increase in abdominal loading when an adult dummy in the seat rearward of the child impacted the seat back. The increase in loading was unacceptable to FAA, although it was recognized that there are no accepted criteria to assess the relationship between differences in measured levels of abdominal loadings and any resulting risk of abdominal injury, and the type and severity of such injury. FAA's methodology for the research program is discussed in NHTSA's 1996 final rule, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.

3. How is a restraint tested if it is over 4.4 kg? How are loads measured in S6.1 if the restraint is over 4.4 kg?

A restraint that is over 4.4 kg is evaluated to ascertain compliance with the requirements of S5.4.3.2 in accordance with NHTSA's laboratory test procedure for that section, which you ask about in your fourth question. The evaluation is based on a visual inspection. NHTSA believes that all belt-positioning booster seats with a back will load the child through the lap belt portion of a Type II belt. Thus, a belt-positioning seat, unless excepted because it is less than 4.4 kg, generally will not meet S5.4.3.2. In essence, that section functions to limit the mass of belt-positioning boosters with backs.

4. In the Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS 213, the section 5.4.3.2 for Direct Restraint Belts (page 104) lists 3 yes/no questions as pass/fail criteria, with 3 yes answers failing the restraint. The questions are: (1) Belt/dummy contact for restraint; (2) Rigid structure behind dummy; and (3) Belt/child restraint slip possible. What does the third criterion mean? How does the 4.4 kg requirement within FMVSS 213 relate to this testing procedure?

The three criteria indicate the factors which NHTSA evaluates to determine whether a child restraint meets S5.4.3.2. A restraint fails if all three criteria are answered "yes." If only two of the questions result in a "yes," then we determine there is no loading of the child dummy. Under (1), to determine whether S5.4.3.2 applies, the agency checks to see if the belt in question contacts the dummy. Under (2), the agency checks to see if there is rigid structure between the dummy and the back of the standard seat assembly because that structure could impose excessive loads on the child. Under (3), NHTSA checks to see if the child restraint can move ("slip") relative to the belt system. A child restraint that moves forward against a relatively stationary belt can load the child occupant.

I hope this information is helpful. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.2/22/99

ID: aiam0944

Dear Mr. Kato: This is in response to your letter of December 28, 1972, concerning th application of Standard 124, 'Accelerator Control Systems', to a particular Nissan design.; Prior to our receipt of your letter, Nissan representatives met wit representatives from our Office of Operating Systems. At this meeting, Nissan representatives explained their questions and left a carburetor with NHTSA staff engineers as an aid to understanding the matters in question. Your company's concern is with the failure of a spring, designated as spring C, which in the event of severance or disconnection, would allow the secondary throttle plate to stay open slightly and thereby increase normal idle speed by approximately 300 rpm. Since spring C only returns the secondary throttle plate to idle position, spring C could not be considered as a return energy source under S5.1 of the standard, and, the failure of Spring C would not fall under the same requirements as a failure of either A or B. Further, spring C is not a part of the 'driver-operated accelerator control system' but is part of the 'fuel metering device', and, as such, severance or disconnection of spring C would not fall within the purview of S5.2.; You also presented a drawing of an accelerator control system and aske which point of severance or disconnection along the system is appropriate when conducting tests for the standard. Since the standard requires that the return to idle time must be met when 'any one component of the accelerator control system disconnected or severed', you ask if this would apply to bolts holding together mounting brackets, or just those components which move in relation to foot-pedal actuation. The components intended to be tested under severance or disconnection in the standard are those which are strictly defined in S4.1 'Driver-operated accelerator control system'. Accordingly, those components which move in accomplishing the regulation of engine speed would be tested, while fixed parts such as brackets and bolts depicted by the drawing you submitted would not be tested.; The carburetor your representatives left with us is being returned t Nissan under Separate cover. Your letter and the attached photographs of the carburetor with labeled springs will be placed in Docket 69-20.; Sincerely, E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems

ID: nht78-1.30

DATE: 12/01/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dec 1, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. Robert B. Kurre Wayne Corporation P. 0. Box 1447 Industries Road Richmond, Indiana 47374

Dear Mr. Kurre:

This responds to your September 6, 1978, letter asking for a clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular you ask whether paragraph S5.3.3 which requires that, "a continuous warning sound shall be audible at the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency exit door having the unclosed mechanism" means that there must be a separate warning alarm at each emergency door and a warning alarm in the driver's seating area.

In your letter you recite the early history of this standard which addresses the alarm system requirement. At the time of the final rule's adoption, commenters questioned the requirement in the same manner that you have questioned in your letter. The agency stated in the preamble to the final rule (41 FR 3871) that the requirement mandated the use of audible alarms at each door and in the driver's seating location. The rationale for that requirement was outlined in the preamble and referenced in your letter. Since this interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 was part of the initial rulemaking with respect to this standard, it is not necessary for the agency to undertake further rulemaking at this time to make this requirement binding upon manufacturers. The multiple alarm system requirement has been the agency's interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 since its issuance, and manufacturers are required to comply with the safety standards as they are interpreted by the agency.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 6, 1978

Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

It has come to our attention, by way of an operator of Wayne school buses, that personnel from the San Francisco regional office of NHTSA claims that a condition of noncompliance exists on Wayne's school buses. This compliant concerns the requirements of FMVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, S5.3.3, namely, there is no alarm device located in the vicinity of the emergency door. A phone call from Mr. Shannon of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance in Washington confirmed the allegation. Mr. Shannon said the allegation is based on NHTSA's interpretation contained in the preamble of the Notification of Amendment 41 FR 3871, Docket No. 75-3, Notice 2. We quote the fifth paragraph of the preamble which is the one in question.

"Six comments supported the proposal to require an audible alarm when the ignition is on and the release mechanism of any emergency door is not closed. Five of these, however, objected that an alarm at each door in addition to one in the driver's cormpartment should be unnecessary and unduly costly. The NHTSA does not agree. The purpose of audible alarms at each door is to indicate which release mechanism is not closed. This is especially critical while the vehicle is in motion, as it will serve to warn the passengers in the area of the possibility that an emergency door could open. In addition, it will serve as a deterrent to tampering by children with the emergency door release mechanisms. Therefore, the requirement that an audible alarm be positioned at each ermergency door and at the driver's position has been retained.

We do not agree that this preamble statement constitutes an interpretation, it is clearly a different version of the standard -a different requirement. The requirement for an audible alarm to be positioned at each emergency door and at the driver's position could not have been retained as stated in the preamble because this requirement has never existed in the standard. As originally proposed in the notice to amend, published in the Federal Register of February 28, 1975, Docket No. 75-3, Notice 1, the requirement was stated thusly:

"When the release mechanism is unlatched and the vehicle ingitlon is in the wonw position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible in the driver's compartment and in the vicinity of the emergency door having the unlatched mechanism."

Docket 75-3, Notice 3, the version of the standard which went into effect on April 1, 1977, states this requirement in this way:

"When the release mechanism is not in the closed position and the vehicle ignition is in the "on" position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible at the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency door having the unclosed mechanism."

A couple of editorial changes were made in the final version, however, in both versions "a continuous warning sound shall be audible at," remains identical. The standard does not require that the sound come from a device located at the driver's seating position and another device located in the vicinity of the emergency door. In addition, the standard is written in the single tense, "a continuous sound." One sound, not two sounds, is required. The performance criteria is whether or not the sound is audible at both the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency door.

As we understand this complaint, the only thing at issue is the existence of an alarm device located at the emergency door. The alarm device located in the driver's compartment produces a continuous sound which is audible at the driver's seating position as well as in the vicinity of the emergency door.

After explaining our position to Mr. Shannon, he upheld the San Francisco office's interpretation and suggested we write to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards for resolution of the problem, therefore, we request that NHTSA either inform their regional offices that in order to comply with FMVSS 217, an alarm device does not have to be located at the emergency door, or institute rule making action soliciting comments to amend FMVSS 217 in accordance with the requirements stated in paragraph 5 of the preamble to 41 FR 3871, Dockets No. 75-3, Notice if these are, in fact, the NHTSA's intended requirements.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

RBK:m

ID: 86-5.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Douglas Applegate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Douglas Applegate U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Applegate:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Thomas Ash of past Liverpool, who asked about our school bus definition. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Mr. Ash explained in his letter to you that Ohio considers vehicles carrying 10 or more student passengers as school buses. be stated that because a vehicle carrying 9 or fewer passengers is not a "school bus" under state law, it may be operated by staff members and advisors who do not have the special qualifications required by the state for school bus drivers. Since the East Liverpool Board of Education would like to use 15-passenger vans operated by those staff members and advisors to carry school children to school related events, it is interested in changing Ohio's definition of a school bus to exclude such vans. Because the state definition of a school bus adopts the Federal definition of that term, Mr. Ash asks us to explain the reasons for our school bus definition.

The definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. In accordance with Congress's mandate in the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Admendment of 1974, NHTSA has issued safety standards for all new school buses. In the Act, Congress mandated that the safety standards apply to all school buses that are designed to carry more than 10 passengers to ensure that all vehicles likely to be significantly used for student transportation would be subject to comprehensive safety standards.

The East Liverpool City Schools can purchase new 15-passenger vans, conforming to our standards, for use in transporting its pupils to school-related events. However, under the Act and our safety standards, a dealer selling h new 15-passenger van to a school district for the purpose of carrying children to and from school or on school-related trips must ensure that the vehicle conforms to all of our school bus safety standards.

Our schoolbus safety standards apply only to the manufacture and sale of new schoolbuses and do not regulate issues of vehicle operation such as driver training or qualifications. The authority to govern the operation of vehicles rests with the State. NHTSA has issued guidelines to the States to assist them in setting up their own highway safety programs. Ohio's decision to require all drivers of school buses to have special training or a special license is consistent with the recommendations we have issued on pupil transportation safety. Those recommendations are found in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. I want to emphasize that the States are not required to follow our guidelines and can modify them to meet their pupil transportation needs.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure

Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Room 520 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from Mr. Thomas Ash, regarding the rationale for defining a school "bus" as a passenger vehicle accommodating more than nine people.

The East Liverpool School District, East Liverpool. Ohio, has pointed out that the use of a fifteen passenger van would be more practical and economical.

Please review Mr. Ash's letter and respond to me as soon as possible.

Sincerely Yours,

DOUGLAS APPLEGATE Member of Congress

DA/wt Enclosure

October 10, 1986

The Honorable Douglas Applegate United States House of Representatives 2464 Rayburn House Office Building Washington. D. C. 20515

Dear Congressman Applegate:

I appreciate very much your prompt response to my inquiry regarding National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rules and regulations regarding school buses. Perhaps it would be useful if I explained in more detail my inquiry.

For some time now, the East Liverpool Board of Education has expressed a desire to carry more than nine passengers in vans. particularly for field trips or athletic contests away from town. This request is prompted primarily by economic considerations, since the driver of a van with nine or fewer passengers need not possess school bus driver endorsements. This is meant that our regular certificated staff members and advisors can operate these vehicles.

However, we have noted that fifteen-passenger vans are also available and seem comparable, and perhaps even superior, to the construction of the nine-passenger vans which are permitted. As we research this issue, we found immediately that the definition of a school bus, under Ohio law, is restricted to vehicles which transport more than nine student passengers, not including the driver. We immediately began exploring the rationale behind this restriction since, again, it seemed to us that a fifteen-passenger van could be used equally as well as the smaller van. We believed that the regulations as adopted by the State of Ohio did not reflect the technology and design of passenger vans from the major automobile manufacturers.

As we continued our research. we found that the state regulations reflected the Ohio Revised Code. However. it was not possible to contact state legislators regarding this matter since existing Ohio law reflects directly the rules and regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Therefore, there is little hope of effecting any change on the state level until the existing federal regulation can be changed.

Naturally, I am not suggesting that the NHTSA rule be changed without some additional study. There very well could be some rationale behind the existing restriction that requires that vehicles transporting more than nine students be classified as school buses.

My reason for contacting your office was to enlist your assistance in gaining such an explanation from the NHTSA. I hope that this explanation clarifies my request regarding this matter. and I am deeply appreciative of your efforts on our behalf.

With best regards, I am,

Very truly yours,

Thomas P. Ash Superintendent of Schools

TPA:mle

cc: Charles R. Thomas, Jr.

ID: aiam3012

Dear Mr. Sperr: This responds to your April 6, 1979, letter asking several question about the applicability of the school bus safety standards to van-type vehicles.; First, you ask whether a vehicle that transports more than 10 person and is constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards must be painted, lighted and marked as a school bus. As you know, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly permitted Type II school vehicles, under 16 passengers, to be marked, painted, and lighted at the option of the school district. As a result of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492), all school buses must be equipped with school bus lights. Since they must have lights, they must also be painted and marked as school buses. Therefore, all school vehicles carrying more than 10 persons must be properly painted, marked and lighted.; In your second question you ask whether a school can purchase and use noncomplying used van manufactured after April 1, 1977. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates, for the most part, vehicles up to the point of first purchase. Therefore, the sale of a noncomplying used vehicle would be beyond the control of this agency. However, we caution schools purchasing such vehicles that they may be unable to insure them, and they may be responsible for significantly increased liability in the event of an accident. Further, we encourage States not to license such vehicles for the transportation of school children.; Third, you ask whether the standard applies to leased or rente vehicles. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.3 of our regulations (49 CFR 571) defines school bus as 'a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce,...' The phrase introduced in interstate commerce includes the lease or rental of vehicles for school use. Since these leased or rented vehicles are considered school buses, they must comply with the safety standards.; In your fourth question, you ask whether a contractor or school ca remove seats from a van that it inadvertently purchased so that as modified it will transport 10 or fewer persons. A school or contractor can modify its own vehicles any way that it chooses. A dealer, manufacturer, or repair business, on the other hand, cannot alter a vehicle in any manner that would render inoperative its compliance with Federal safety standards. The agency notes that if a school removes seats from the van in the manner suggested in your letter, the van would no longer be required to comply with the school bus safety standards. However, a new van-type vehicle that transports 10 or fewer persons must comply with safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV). Your modified vehicle probably would not comply with these MPV requirements. You should remember that the operation of a noncomplying school bus or a noncomplying MPV does not subject a school to liability to the NHTSA. However, a school's private liability in the event of an accident might be increased.; In your final question, you ask whether the NHTSA is enforcing th school bus regulations. The agency has taken extensive steps to enforce its school bus regulations. These include a major testing program of buses manufactured in compliance with the standards. As a result of these tests, some noncompliances have been determined and some remedies have occurred. With respect to the sale of vans as school vehicles, the agency has warned many dealers of the illegality of this practice, and in most instances, these dealers have repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law.; We encourage States to adopt licensing practices that ensure tha vehicles used to transport school children and manufactured after April 1, 1977, comply with the safety standards. Many States now have such licensing programs, and the problem of van misuse is rapidly diminishing in those areas. We further encourage States to report instances of violations to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. That Office will take the necessary steps to enforce the law.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3013

Dear Mr. Sperr: This responds to your April 6, 1979, letter asking several question about the applicability of the school bus safety standards to van-type vehicles.; First, you ask whether a vehicle that transports more than 10 person and is constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards must be painted, lighted and marked as a school bus. As you know, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly permitted Type II school vehicles, under 16 passengers, to be marked, painted, and lighted at the option of the school district. As a result of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492), all school buses must be equipped with school bus lights. Since they must have lights, they must also be painted and marked as school buses. Therefore, all school vehicles carrying more than 10 persons must be properly painted, marked and lighted.; In your second question you ask whether a school can purchase and use noncomplying used van manufactured after April 1, 1977. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates, for the most part, vehicles up to the point of first purchase. Therefore, the sale of a noncomplying used vehicle would be beyond the control of this agency. However, we caution schools purchasing such vehicles that they may be unable to insure them, and they may be responsible for significantly increased liability in the event of an accident. Further, we encourage States not to license such vehicles for the transportation of school children.; Third, you ask whether the standard applies to leased or rente vehicles. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.3 of our regulations (49 CFR 571) defines school bus as 'a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce,...' The phrase introduced in interstate commerce includes the lease or rental of vehicles for school use. Since these leased or rented vehicles are considered school buses, they must comply with the safety standards.; In your fourth question, you ask whether a contractor or school ca remove seats from a van that it inadvertently purchased so that as modified it will transport 10 or fewer persons. A school or contractor can modify its own vehicles any way that it chooses. A dealer, manufacturer, or repair business, on the other hand, cannot alter a vehicle in any manner that would render inoperative its compliance with Federal safety standards. The agency notes that if a school removes seats from the van in the manner suggested in your letter, the van would no longer be required to comply with the school bus safety standards. However, a new van-type vehicle that transports 10 or fewer persons must comply with safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV). Your modified vehicle probably would not comply with these MPV requirements. You should remember that the operation of a noncomplying school bus or a noncomplying MPV does not subject a school to liability to the NHTSA. However, a school's private liability in the event of an accident might be increased.; In your final question, you ask whether the NHTSA is enforcing th school bus regulations. The agency has taken extensive steps to enforce its school bus regulations. These include a major testing program of buses manufactured in compliance with the standards. As a result of these tests, some noncompliances have been determined and some remedies have occurred. With respect to the sale of vans as school vehicles, the agency has warned many dealers of the illegality of this practice, and in most instances, these dealers have repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law.; We encourage States to adopt licensing practices that ensure tha vehicles used to transport school children and manufactured after April 1, 1977, comply with the safety standards. Many States now have such licensing programs, and the problem of van misuse is rapidly diminishing in those areas. We further encourage States to report instances of violations to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. That Office will take the necessary steps to enforce the law.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1768y

Mr. Karl H. Mayer
Rules and Regulations
Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG
Porschestrasse 42
Stuttgart--Zuffenhausen
West Germany

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. l0l, Controls and Displays, and No. l02, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standards in connection with a new transmission and related gear shift mechanism that you are considering producing. I note that your accompanying request for confidentiality was withdrawn by an August l5, l988 letter signed by your attorney, effective September 30, l988.

You stated that the new transmission is characterized by two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit. A motor vehicle incorporating the transmission does not have a clutch pedal. Operation of the transmission is entirely dependent on the position selected for the gear shift lever. The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 l. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the "M" position after being tapped. You plan to provide two shift displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel.

You stated that you believe that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it meets the various requirements of Standards No. l0l and l02 and asked whether we agree with your interpretation. You also asked three questions related to certain aspects of the transmission and related gear shift lever and shift displays. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, and as noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

I agree with your basic contention that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it, and the accompanying gear shift lever and shift displays, meet the various requirements of Standards No. l0l and l02. The performance requirements specified in the two standards do not prohibit dual function transmissions.

I have one primary comment concerning how you should evaluate Standards No. l0l and No. l02 with respect to the compliance of a vehicle equipped with the transmission. In some instances, these standards specify different requirements depending on whether a vehicle is equipped with a manual transmission or an automatic transmission. Thus, a critical issue is which of these requirements would need to be met by a vehicle equipped with your planned transmission. While you characterize the transmission as having two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit, it is our opinion that the transmission is an automatic transmission for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is possible, of course, to manually control most conventional automatic transmissions, at least to some extent, by means of the gear shift lever, e.g., by shifting the lever from D to L. Your transmission would differ from a conventional automatic transmission primarily in having an additional means of manual control. However, the transmission would still be an automatic transmission. Vehicles equipped with the transmission would thus need to meet the requirements specified by Standards No. l0l and No. l02 for vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, and not the requirements specified for vehicles equipped with a manual transmission.

I will now address your three specific questions. You stated that it appears to you that when the shift lever is in the manual slot, it is permissible to have the lever, after tapping to shift up or down, return to the original middle position, and asked for our interpretation on this point. We agree that this basic design is permitted under Standards No. l0l and No. l02.

Your second and third questions, which I will address together, concern the shift displays. You stated that you believe it is permissible for both of the dual shift pattern displays, i.e., the one on the middle console and the one on the instrument panel, to be constantly visible so that the driver can simultaneously see the currently used shift mode and also the alternative, and asked for our evaluation of this point. You also asked about the permissibility of two alternative instrument panel displays.

I will begin my discussion of these questions by identifying the relevant requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02. Section S3.2 of Standard No. l02 states that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." NHTSA has previously interpreted "position" to mean the shift lever positions in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions. NHTSA has previously interpreted the requirement for permanent display as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the required display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, be activated) only when the key is in the ignition switch. (I note that on August 25, l988, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the requirement for permanent display. A copy is enclosed.)

Standard No. l0l specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.l requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S6 provides that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.l and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. l02.

Your design includes the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 2 l + M -. Under section S3.2 of Standard No. l02, all of these positions must be permanently displayed, i.e., there must be a display of the l0 positions in relation to each other and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. As indicated above, Standard No. l0l specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays.

The fact that your design would include more than one gear position display raises several issues, including (l) whether more than one display is permitted, (2) whether each display (where multiple displays are provided) must meet all of the requirements specified by Standards No. l0l and No. l02, and (3) whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. It is our opinion that more than one display is permitted. It is also our opinion that if one display meets all of the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02, the additional display(s) provided voluntarily by the manufacturer need not meet any particular requirements (except for section S5.3.5 of Standard No. l0l, which specifies requirements for sources of illumination not otherwise regulated by that standard). We have not previously found it necessary to address the issue of whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. However, one commenter on the August 25, l988 notice cited above asked whether two displays could be used together to demonstrate compliance with section S3.2 of Standard No. l02. We plan to address that specific issue in the context of that rulemaking.

While it is not entirely clear from your letter, the display on the middle console may provide permanent display (including times when the ignition is not on) of the shift lever positions, i.e., a display of the l0 positions in relation to each other and an indication of the position selected by the driver. It appears, however, that illumination is not provided for this display. Given the reference in Standard No. l0l to Standard No. l02, it is our opinion that where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. l02 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. l0l must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. l02.

If the display on the console fully met the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02, it would be unnecessary for the additional display on the instrument panel to also meet the standards (with the exception of section S5.3.5 of Standard No. l0l, as noted above). I note that neither of the alternative instrument panel displays shown in your letter show all of the shift lever positions. While the displays do show P R N D 3 2 l, they show either 4 3 2 l or 4 3 M 2 l instead of + M -. If the instrument panel display, rather than the console display, was to be used to meet the requirements of section S3.2 of Standard No. l0l, it would be necessary for the display to show the l0 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. I also assume that the instrument panel display is not activated when the ignition is not on and thus does not provide a permanent display.

I would like to note that the discussion in the preceding paragraph should not be read as a suggestion that you change the instrument panel display to show + M - instead of 4 3 2 l or 4 3 M 2 l. One consequence of your design is that, in the manual mode, the driver would not know what gear the car was in from either observing the location of the gear shift lever or by knowing the shift lever position (+ M or -). Your design takes care of this, however, by providing an indication of actual gear position on the instrument panel display. Assuming that you can meet the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02 by means of the console display, we believe that it would be a desirable feature of your design to indicate actual gear position on the voluntarily provided instrument panel display.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:l0l:l02 d:4/3/89

ID: aiam5232

"Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter requesting NHTSA's view on whether Title VI 'Theft Prevention' of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., Cost Savings Act) places a limit of $15 on the cost of an antitheft device to be installed in a high theft vehicle pursuant to an exemption from the parts marking standard. You believe the answer is no. As explained below, we agree. The $15 limitation applies only to the cost of complying with the parts marking standard. The cost limitation appears in 2024(a), which provides that 'The standard under section 602 (section 2022) may not (1) impose costs upon any manufacturer of motor vehicles to comply with such standard in excess of $15 per motor vehicle...' (Emphasis added.) Further, 2024(a) makes no reference to 2025 or to the costs of installing antitheft devices pursuant to exemptions issued under that section. Thus, unless the costs of an antitheft device installed in lieu of compliance with the standard can be regarded as costs imposed by the standard, the $15 maximum does not apply to the costs of those devices. We do not regard the costs of those devices to be costs imposed by the standard. Instead, they are costs which the manufacturer has chosen to bear by voluntarily seeking an exemption from the standard. Further, we note that 2025 does not itself contain any cost limitation. Although the foregoing analysis of the statutory language is sufficient to answer your question, we note that the legislative history of the 1984 Theft Act speaks directly to that question. Chairman John Dingell of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce commented on concerns that the costs for antitheft devices will be far greater than the costs of parts marking. He believed that manufacturers will not install devices that add a substantial cost to a vehicle and indicated that, regardless of the potential costs, Title VI 'does not provide for consideration of costs by DOT.' (See, Congressional Record-House October 1, 1984, p. H 10462, at 10472.) Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Cost Savings Act does not limit the cost of an antitheft device that is installed pursuant to the issuance under 2025 of an exemption from the standard. Please note that the passage of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (ACTA) did not amend, in any way relevant to our conclusions, the provisions limiting costs of parts marking and authorizing the installation of antitheft devices in lieu of parts marking. I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator";