ID: 1761y

The Honorable Robert C. Smith
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Maureen Andrews, of Derry. You expressed concern about the absence of safety belts for school bus passengers and about the number of persons to occupy a school bus seat. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Act to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards addressing various aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel system integrity. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to make school buses, already a safe mode of transportation, even safer.

We have considered the safety belt issue in connection with our safety standard for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Providing compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and protect them during a crash. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of whether these passengers use safety belts.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our notice terminating a rulemaking proceeding to decide whether Standard No. 222 should be amended to specify certain requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses. We decided not to amend the standard since these belts appear to be currently installed in a manner that ensures adequate safety performance. The notice provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by Mrs. Andrews. As explained in the notice, school buses in this country have compiled an excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses differ from small school buses in that they have greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. For all of these reasons, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities in large school buses is not the same as that for smaller vehicles, such as small school buses. Thus, although Standard No. 222 does require safety belts for passengers in small school buses, we conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts in large school buses is not justified at this time.

Mrs. Andrews also asks about requirements that apply to the number of children that are allowed to sit on a bench seat. We are not authorized by Congress to regulate the number of persons that may occupy a school bus seat. However, for the purpose of ensuring that school bus manufacturers properly design their large school buses, we do specify the method for establishing the number of designated seating positions on a bench seat.

The number of seating positions on a bench seat is calculated under Standard No. 222 by dividing the bench width in inches by 15 and rounding the result to the nearest whole number. Under this formula, a 39 inch bench seat has three seating positions. (39 divided by 15 = 2.6, which is rounded to 3) For small school buses, the determination of the number of positions ensures that the bench seat would have sufficient restraint systems for the maximum number of persons that should ever occupy the seat, and that the seat provides crash protection to all these persons. For large school buses, the determination ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the number of occupants and of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash.

It should be noted, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the Standard No. 222 formula is not meant to be an absolute measure of the seating capacity of the bus, irrespective of occupant size. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, while a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students, it may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes, the appropriate capacity of the bus will fall somewhere between those two values. The decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved, and in accordance with state and local requirements.

Since NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate how States use school buses, the agency could not preclude a State from allowing the number of passengers on a bench seat to exceed the number of designated seating positions on that seat. However, we agree with Mrs. Andrews that a student should not stand while riding in a school bus. We agree further that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mrs. Andrews' concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by her working with the local school board and state officials.

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

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure /ref:222 d:3/24/89

ID: aiam4866

"Dear Mr. Dashney: This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991 In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events? The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions. The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered 'schoolbuses' by this agency. A 'school bus' is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR 571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for 'buses' and also those for 'school buses.' The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses: Standards No. 101 through No. 104, Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 106 through No. 108, Standards No. 111 through 113, Standard No. 115, Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standard No. 119, Standard No. 120, Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems), Standard No. 124, Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 205, Standards No. 207 through No. 210, Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 217, Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 220, Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302. These standards are part of 49 CFR 571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS. Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR 571.3. For instance, 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation' (49 CFR 571.3(b)). 'Passenger car' is defined as ' a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less' (49 CFR 571.3(b)). Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events? Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses. Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information. I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 2395y

Mr. R.W. Schreyer
Senior Sales Engineer
Transportation Manufacturing Corp.
Box 5670 (R.I.A.C.)
Roswell, NM 88202-5070

Dear Mr. Schreyer:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Harry Thompson of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210). You posed two questions, which I will answer in the order presented.

First, you noted that the State of Nevada will be procuring some prison buses, equipped with lap-only safety belts at the passenger seating positions. You correctly noted that no safety standard requires safety belts to be installed for passenger seating positions on buses, but asked if this agency could "provide direction on what course of action [TMC] should take." You asked particularly whether you should design the anchorages for the lap-only safety belts to conform with the requirements of Standard No. 210.

NHTSA answered this question in a March 22, 1989 letter to Mr. Keith McDowell, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. As we said in that letter, NHTSA must decline to issue any "guidelines" beyond or in addition to the requirements set forth in the safety standards. Therefore, since Standard No. 210 expressly exempts passenger seats in buses from the standard's anchorage requirements, Federal law leaves the question of how any such anchorages should be designed entirely up to the judgment of the bus manufacturer. Please note, however, that the State of Nevada is free to specify certain design and performance criteria with which these anchorages must comply in its contract for these buses.

Second, you asked for a clarification of the testing conducted to determine compliance with Standard No. 210. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test with which anchorages must comply. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 reads as follows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to those anchorages." You asked whether all seats in the coach must be tested simultaneously or whether a single seat would be tested, and then the next seat tested, and so forth.

Please note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are "floor-mounted" anchorages for "adjacent designated seating positions." Assuming that there is an aisle or some other separation between the seat assemblies in your buses, the only "adjacent" designated seating positions would be those common to one occupant seat. Therefore, no more than one occupant seat's anchorages would be tested simultaneously under Standard No. 210. Even those anchorages common to one occupant seat would be tested simultaneously only if the anchorages were floor-mounted.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:210 d:4/9/90

ID: 18328a.drn

Mary Johnston, Esq.
Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County
Department of Law
204 Courthouse
Nashville, TN 37201

Dear Ms. Johnston:

This responds to your letter and telephone call asking about our school bus regulations. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your letter asks the following:

If a new multipurpose passenger vehicle (van) with a capacity of ten (10) persons⁽¹⁾ . . .  is purchased by a private company to transport school children (under a contract with a school system) and remodeled, by removing seats and installing restraint systems for wheelchairs, to carry four wheelchairs, is this sale permissible under federal regulation?

If the above occurs but the remodeling creates two wheelchair spaces and two passenger seats, is this permissible under federal regulations?

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you did not know whether the modification would be made by the dealer that sells the new vehicle or the purchaser (which will provide the transportation under a contract with the school).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

One of the factors used by NHTSA in determining vehicle types is seating capacity. The agency determines whether a vehicle is a "bus" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) based in part on the vehicle's passenger seating capacity. NHTSA determines a vehicle's seating capacity by counting the number of "designated seating positions" in the vehicle. That term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 of our regulations. The term was amended in 1996 to address school bus modifications involving the removal of seats.

Prior to March 1996, NHTSA considered each position for securing a wheelchair on a school bus as one designated seating position (DSP). That interpretation of DSP had a significant impact on whether some vehicles were classified as MPVs or as school buses. When seats were removed from a bus to place wheelchair securement devices on the vehicle, and the seating capacity of the vehicle was reduced to 10 or fewer persons, the classification of the vehicle changed from a bus to an MPV. The vehicle was an MPV even if the vehicle prior to modification had been a school bus and was to be used after the modification as a school vehicle.

The agency undertook rulemaking to afford students in wheelchairs the school bus protection provided to students transported in other school buses. The 4-to-1 ratio of DSPs to wheelchair positions was based on information that 4 DSPs are typically removed for each wheelchair location installed on a bus.

Accordingly, NHTSA amended the DSP definition at 49 CFR 571.3, to state, in pertinent part:

* * *

For the sole purpose of determining the classification of any vehicle sold or introduced into interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, any location in such vehicle intended for securement of an occupied wheelchair during vehicle operation shall be regarded as four designated seating positions.

Turning to your question, if a dealer modifies a new multipurpose passenger vehicle before delivery, by removing seats and installing 4 wheelchair restraint systems, the dealer would be an "alterer" under our regulations (49 CFR 567.7). The dealer must place an alterer's label on the altered vehicle, including a statement that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards. As altered, the school vehicle would be a "school bus," given its designated seating positions (17) and pupil transportation purpose. The vehicle would have to be certified as meeting Federal school bus standards.

If the MPV were modified after the first sale by a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business, certain restrictions apply. These entities are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not knowingly remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. The business may remove the seats and install the wheelchair retaining devices if the modifier does not knowingly reduce the performance of compliant systems. The businesses would not be required to ensure that new systems they install on the used vehicle (that are wholly independent of existing systems) perform to the school bus safety standards. However, NHTSA would encourage the modifier to make sure the new systems adequately performed. For example, we would recommend conforming the wheelchair locations to the requirements for wheelchair securement anchorages in Standard 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" (see S5.4.1 of 49 CFR 571.222).

If the private company you refer to modifies its own vehicle, there is no Federal certification requirement. Owners may modify their own vehicles without needing to meet Federal safety standards. In addition, the "make inoperative" prohibition of 49 U.S.C. 30122 does not apply to modifications to a vehicle made by its owner. Again, however, we would encourage the owner to ensure that it modifies its vehicles in ways that provide adequate levels of safety performance. Please also note that since Tennessee State law may regulate how an owner may modify its own vehicles, you should review State law to see if it addresses owners' modifications of their school vehicles.

A vehicle with two wheelchair positions and two passenger seats would be considered a school bus, if altered and sold as a new vehicle. The vehicle would be considered to have a seating capacity of 11 persons (4 DSPs per wheelchair position, plus two passenger seats and the driver's seating position). The requirements that apply to this modification are the same as those discussed in our answer to your first question.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Because States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles under State law, you should review the law of Tennessee to see if it addresses how school children who use wheelchairs must be transported.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.3/30/99

1. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is designed to carry 10 or fewer persons, counting the driver. Accordingly, we did not include the driver, as you had, because counting the driver's position results in a carrying capacity of 11 persons.

ID: 002154.drn

Robert L. Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
IC Corporation
751 South Harkrider
Conway, AR 72034

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your October 30, 2002 request for an interpretation of whether seven specified parts in a school bus are excluded from the definition of "body panel joints" as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. At a meeting of October 24, 2002 with agency staff, you provided samples of sections of some parts.




Standard No. 221 Requirements

Standard No. 221 requires, among other things, that each body panel joint, when tested in accordance with the procedure of S6, shall hold the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel determined pursuant to S6.2 (S5.1). Standard No. 221 defines "body panel joint" as:

the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, including but not limited to floor panels, and body panels made of composite materials such as plastic or plywood, excluding trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the bus body, members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, ventilation panels, components provided for functional purposes, and engine access covers.

S5.2.1 of the standard excludes the following body panel joints from the requirements of S5.1:

1. Any interior maintenance access panel or joint which lies forward of the passenger compartment.
2. Any interior maintenance access panel within the passenger compartment that does not exceed 305 mm when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.
3. Trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint, support members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, doors and windows, ventilation panels, and engine access covers.




Your Questions

1. Floor Covering

In your letter, you state that "metal trim parts" are used to cover the seams created where the rubber floor mat on the aisle meets the other sections of the school bus floor. You informed us that the metal trim part keeps the school bus floor even. You provided a physical sample of the metal trim part that appears to be made of aluminum and measures 25 millimeters (one inch) in width.

We agree that this part is "trim" which "do[es] not contribute to the strength of the bus body."Thus, it is not a "body panel joint" within the meaning of Standard No. 221.

2. Heater Hose Cover

You also described a metal cover for the heater hose supply and return that is positioned between the bus floor mat and the inside of the school bus wall. ^[1] The cover protects the rubber hose from damage and in the event of hose failure, protects passengers from being injured by scalding from the hot water or steam escaping from the hose.

We agree that the cover is a "component provided for functional purposes" because of its potential use to shield against hot water or steam escaping from the hose. Thus, it is not a "body panel joint."

3. Cove Molding

You state that your company has installed steel cove molding inside the school bus at the wall-to-floor joint. Used to cover any gaps between the edge of the floor mat and the sidewall of the bus, the cove molding is presently secured to the floor with screws and does not attach to the wall.In the October 24, 2002 meeting, you stated that the purpose of the steel cove molding is to prevent schoolchildren from tampering with (by inserting pencils, fingers, etc.) the gaps created where the school bus wall meets the floor. You assert that the cove molding does not contribute to the strength of the joint.

We agree that the cove molding is a trim part and does not contribute to the strength of the bus body. Thus, it is not a "body panel joint."

4. Plastic Light Bar Above the Passenger Window

You provided the following description:

Above the passenger windows, we are proposing to replace the steel light bars with plastic light bars. The interior roof liner panel behind these light bars extends down to the structure just above the passenger windows and is attached at all joints meeting the joint strength requirements of FMVSS 221. The liner will have small openings to provide wire routing to windows and doors. The plastic light bar will cover the wiring and the small openings. It will be retained by snapping behind the window flange on the lower edge and secured with screws to the interior roof liner on the top edge. The joints and ends of this light bar will be covered with formed plastic parts that will blend into the roof liner or other parts of the body interior, and will be secured with screws. We consider these trim parts compliant to FMVSS 221 and are included in S5.2.1(b).

The interior roof liner panel is a structural joint that must meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement because it "extends down to the structure just above the passenger windows and is attached at all joints meeting the joint strength requirement of FMVSS 221." As such, the interior roof liner panel forms part of the integral inner shell and appears to be a weight bearing structure.

You state that the plastic light bar will be placed in front of the interior roof liner panel (so that the light bar faces the passenger compartment). The light bar will be retained by "snapping behind the window flange on the lower edge and secured with screws to the interior roof liner on the top edge." Because of the way that the plastic light bar will be placed, it does not appear to be a weight bearing structure. Given this, we conclude that the plastic light bar is trim or a decorative part and not load bearing. ^[2] Thus, the plastic light bar does not have to meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement.

5. Parts Mostly Forward of the Passenger Compartment

S5.2 of Standard No. 221 excludes from the tensile test requirement any joint that lies forward of the passenger compartment. "Passenger compartment" is defined in S4 as:

space within the school bus interior that is between a vertical transverse plane located 762 mm in front of the forwardmost passenger seating reference point and including a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear interior wall of the bus at the vehicle centerline.

You have three interior parts that you state are partly forward of the passenger compartment.

Item No. One Interior Liner and Roof Lightbar Above the Drivers Side Window

Your question pertains to an interior body panel ("roof interior liner") that is just above the drivers window. It attaches to a steel trim part ("light bar") which covers a gap between the interior liner and the header of the window to the side of the driver. Some portion of the joint formed by the roof interior liner and the light bar falls within the "passenger compartment," while another portion is forward of the passenger compartment. You state your belief that is acceptable to meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement only for that portion extending into the passenger compartment.

Our answer is the portion of the joint that is within the passenger compartment must meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement of S5.1. Stated differently, the entire joint is not excluded from S5.1 merely because a portion of it lies outside of the passenger compartment. A related question you raise is whether the portion of the joint that is forward of the passenger compartment is excluded from the requirement. The answer is yes. We interpret S5.2.1(a) to exclude the portion of the joint that lies forward of the passenger compartment.

Item No. Two Interior Liner Above the Entrance Door

Your next question is similar to the question above for item one. You describe a joint formed by the interior liner and a "motor structure" used with an optional electric door control. You state that the portion of the joint that is within the passenger compartment will meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement. Your question asks whether the portion of the joint that extends forward of the passenger compartment is excluded from the requirement. The answer is yes. We interpret S5.2.1(a) to exclude the portion of the joint forward of the passenger compartment. However, you are correct that the portion of the joint that lies within the passenger compartment must meet S5.1.

Item No. Three Interior Plastic Trim Box Over Entrance Door

You write that above the entrance door, your company installs a plastic trim box to cover the openings and door-operating devices. This box has a plastic "door" that opens in order to service the controls and/or the motor. The box could intrude about 7 inches into the passenger compartment. You state your belief that the mounting of this plastic trim box does not have to meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement.

We agree that the part is excluded. The plastic trim box extends from the roof interior liner at what appears to be a 90 degree angle. As such, it does not appear to be a weight bearing structure or to be part of the integral inner shell of the school bus. Moreover, you inform us that the plastic trim box serves to cover air and electric door controls. For these reasons, we determine that the interior plastic trim box over the entrance door is "trim" that does not contribute to the strength of the roof interior liner, and thus is not a "body panel joint" that must meet S5.1 of Standard No. 221.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:221
d.12/23/02





---




^[1] We agree with your assessment that since the cover has no holes or slots for venting, it cannot be considered a "ventilation panel."

^[2] We are mindful that the requirement you ask about becomes effective January 1, 2003, and that you will need time in which to acquire supplies of the new light bars to fit the extended roof liner panel that would enable IC Corporation to meet S5.1 of Standard No. 221. Since you have timely asked for clarification from us on the issue, we will not enforce S5.1 with respect to these panels for vehicles manufactured by IC Corporation on or before April 1, 2003.

ID: nht71-2.14

DATE: 03/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Bobby-Mac Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which you submitted for our review a draft of a label that you intend to use on your Bobby-Mac baby chair in accordance with paragraph S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. We have restated the parts of your label whose compliance with the requirements of S4.1 is questionable, followed by our comments.

1. "In each position, reclining to upright, Bobby-Mac exceeds Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requirements for child seating systems."

We assume that you intend this statement to be your certification, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the Bobby-Mac seat complies with Standard No. 213. While certification is not required to be placed on the label by S4.1, placing it there is not inconsistent with either Section 114 of the Act or Standard No. 213. However, we do not consider the statement you have used to be an adequate certification statement. This is because when read literally, the statement deals only with the static force requirements of the standard, as the other requirements, such as those for labeling (S4.1), providing instructions (S4.2), adjustments (S4.3), and others, are neither concerned with the "position " of the child seat nor can they be "exceeded." You must certify compliance with all the requirements of the standard, and your statement should be changed accordingly. Should you wish to use it, the following statement, for child seats manufactured on or after April 1, 1971, would be satisfactory: "This child seating system conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it on the date of manufacture shown below."

2. "Bobby-Mac can only be used in ears with standard auto seat belt which must be used to secure Bobby-Mac safely on front or rear auto seat. In vehicles with seats more elevated from floor than usual passenger auto, thereby not permitting sufficient length in auto seat belt to loop around Bobby-Mac, or if for any reasons auto seat belt is short, auto dealer or auto belt manufacturer can supply belt lengthener."

You have apparently placed this statement on the label to comply with paragraph S4.1(e) of the standard which requires a statement describing in general terms the types of vehicles and designated seating positions in those vehicles in which the system is recommended or not recommended for use. It is your responsibility under the requirement to make cortain that the types of vehicles you recommend have seat belts that are long enough to use the Bobby-Mac as recommended. You have stated that the Bobby-Mac can be used with a standard auto seat belt, but you have also indicated that there are types of vehicles or belt conditions with which the Bobby-Mac should not be used without some modification. We believe that your exceptions should be stated more objectively, such as prescribing the minimum belt loop length above the seat cushion that is required, so that a consumer can more accurately determine whether you are recommending the Bobby-Mac for use in his vehicle.

With reference to your recommendation concerning seat belt lengtheners if these lengtheners are not available by April 1, 1971, your label would not comply with the requirement. If they are available, your label should describe them in sufficient detail, such as by part number, so that consumer will know precisely what they must obtain in order to properly install the Bobby-Mac child seat. Your seat would be required to meet the force requirement of the standard when tested in the vehicles in which you recommend it for use and using any of the seat belt modifiers that you recommend for use with it.

3. "When Bobby-Mac is used for older, taller youngster, it must be used auto seat whose seat back or head restraint extends at least 6" above top of Bobby-Mac seat bucket."

In this case, you indicate that a child of a certain height must be placed at only certain seating positions. In order to provide consumers with some objective criteria by which they can determine whether Bobby-Mac is appropriate for their vehicles, the minimum height of the child that needs the additional head restraint protection should be provided, rather than describing him as merely "older" or "taller." In addition, it would be preferable if you specified the total seat back height above the seat cushion that is necessary for the children you have in mind, rather than indicating this measurement as the distance from the top of the child seat bucket. The information would be more useful to consumers, as it would allow them to determine the appropriateness of the Bobby-Mac without first obtaining one.

4. Finally, based upon the photographs submitted with your letter, the Bobby-Mac seat does not appear to be a rearward-facing child seat. If this is the case, the statement, "For use only on forward-facing vehicle seats," as required by S4.1(g), must be included on the label.

Please write if you have further questions.

ID: nht90-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: R.W. SCHREYER -- SENIOR SALES ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTURING CORP. TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-5-90 TO HARRY THOMPSON FROM R. W. SCHREYER ATTACHED; (OCC 4509). ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 12-11-89 TO FRANK BERNDT FROM JOE DABROWSKI, LETTER DATED 3-22-89 TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, AND LETTER DATED 3-25-77 TO ROBERT B. KURRE, WAYNE CORPORATION, FROM FRANK BERNDT. TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Harry Thompson of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt AssemblY Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). You posed two questions, which I will answer in the order presented.

First, you noted that the State of Nevada will be procuring some prison buses, equipped with lap-only safety belts at the passenger seating positions. You correctly noted that no safety standard requires safety belts to be installed for passenger seatin g positions on buses, but asked if this agency could "provide direction on what course of action (TMC) should take." You asked particularly whether you should design the anchorages for the lap-only safety belts to conform with the requirements of Standa rd No. 210.

NHTSA answered this question in a March 22, 1989 letter to Mr. Keith McDowell, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. As we said in that letter, NHTSA must decline to issue any "guidelines" beyond or in addition to the requirements set forth in the safety standards. Therefore, since Standard No. 210 expressly exempts passenger seats in buses from the standard's anchorage requirements, Federal law leaves the question of how any such anchorages should be designed entirely up to the judgment of the bus manufacturer. Please note, however, that the State of Nevada is free to specify certain design and performance criteria with which these anchorages must comply in its contract for these buses.

Second, you asked for a clarification of the testing conducted to determine compliance with Standard No. 210. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test with which anchorages must comply. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 reads as fo llows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to thos e anchorages." You asked whether all seats in the coach must be tested simultaneously or whether a single seat would be tested, and then the next seat tested, and so forth.

Please note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are "floor-mounted" anchorages for "adjacent designated

seating positions." Assuming that there is an aisle or some other separation between the seat assemblies in your buses, the only "adjacent" designated seating positions would be those common to one occupant seat. Therefore, no more than one occupant sea t's anchorages would be tested simultaneously under Standard No. 210. Even those anchorages common to one occupant seat would be tested simultaneously only if the anchorages were floor-mounted.

Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Donald W. Riegle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 5, 1985 The Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr. SD-185 United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Attn: Mike Manual Dear Senator Riegle: This letter is in further response to your inquiry concerning school bus seating issues raised by your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr. I regret the delay in our response. Mr. Furr is interested in amending our safety standards to limit the number of passengers that a school bus may carry. He suggests reducing the passenger capacity of a standard 72-passenger school bus by the use of different seat configurations. I would like to begin by explaining that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381-1426), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. One of those standards is Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Your constituent is correct that our safety standards so not limit the overall passenger capacity of a school bus. This is because the agency is not aware of any safety problem associated with the way manufacturers rate the capacity of their buses. We believe that manufacturers should be able to design their school buses to carry any number of passengers, provided that the appropriate occupant requirements of Standard No. 222 are met. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 222 states that: The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number. The number of seating positions in a bench seat, expressed by "W," is calculated to determine the amount of force school bus seats must withstand in order to provide adequate crash protection for passengers. School bus seats must comply with the standard's requirements for forward and rearward performance by withstanding specified amounts of applied energy. The amount of energy applied to a particular bench seat is dependent on the number of seating positions. As that number increases, the amount of force the seat must withstand likewise increases.

In accordance with S4.1, a 39-inch bench seat is assumed to have 3 designated seating positions. We recognize that such seats may be occupied by fewer persons, but that calculation helps to assure that the seat provides adequate protection when occupied by the maximum number. School buses with 24 39-inch bench seats are therefore assumed to carry 72 passengers. The school bus manufacturer must ensure that each bench seat meets the forward and rearward performance requirements, and all other applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, based on the calculations of seating positions and the required force applications. Mr. Furr suggests alternative seating configurations for school buses. He suggests that bench seats on a school bus, currently designated by a manufacturer to carry 72 passengers, should be designed with rows of 47-inch and 31-inch bench seats. Mr. Furr believed that a 47-inch bench seat and a 31-inch bench seat could carry 3 and 2 passengers, respectively, for a total passengers capacity of 60 for the school bus. He suggests a change in the regulation to reflect this design change. NHTSA is not aware of any data indicating that there is a safety problem associated with the seating capacity of school buses to justify a rule-making action amending Standard No. 222. From our experience with Standard No. 222, some school districts appear to have concerns that actions reducing seating capacity in their vehicles might result in the need to purchase additional buses at substantial costs. Since we are not aware of any information indicating that a safety need exists to regulate the capacity of a school bus, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend Standard No. 222 in the manner suggested by Mr. Furr. Further, no amendment is necessary to permit local school districts to order seat configurations such as those suggested by Mr. Furr. The districts may do so now as long as manufacturers can ensure that their school buses meet all the applicable performance requirements of our safety standards. The second set of regulations administered by NHTSA was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401-408). Those regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, apply to state highway safety programs and cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), Pupil Transportation Safety, contains guidelines for the identification, maintenance, and operation of school vehicles. HSPS 17 does not set a limit on the seating capacity of school buses. It does, however, recommend that school districts design their bus routes to utilize fully the capacity of the bus, while avoiding standees. You may wish to consult with the State of Michigan to determine to what extent that state has adopted the provisions of HSPS 17. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure: Constituent's Correspondence

ID: aiam5611

"Dear Ms. Grant: This responds to your letter asking whether your 197 Chevrolet Blazer is 'street-legal.' You stated that an official of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles has questioned whether your vehicle is street-legal because it does not have shoulder belts. According to your letter, the vehicle has a fiberglass removable roof, and was originally manufactured with lap belts. You also stated that inquiries at local dealers indicate that General Motors does not make a shoulder belt for this model 'because there is no place to safely mount it.' We assume that you are asking whether your vehicle was originally required to have lap/shoulder belts, because many states require vehicles in use to be equipped with the same kinds of safety belts that were required by the Federal government for the vehicles when new. As discussed below, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts, but was required to have at least lap belts at each seating position. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies, among other things, seat belt requirements for new vehicles. Standard No. 208 generally required, for model year 1974 vehicles such as your Blazer, either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at each seating position, at the manufacturer's option. Therefore, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3349

Dear Mr. Blythe: This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning th test procedures of Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance* (49 CFR 571.216). Specifically, you are concerned with the proper applications of the test block forces specified in paragraphs S6.3 and S6.2(d) of the standard.; Your first question asks whether paragraph S6.3 allows the force on th test block to be applied 'essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block.' Paragraph S6.3 specifies that the force required by the standard shall be applied in a downward direction to the lower surface of the test device. Figure 1 of the standard illustrates this procedure and indicates that the force is to be centrally applied to the loading block. This procedure will be followed during tests by the agency to determine the compliance of particular passenger cars with Safety Standard No. 216. Therefore, we would not recommend that you apply the force opposite the initial contact point of the test block with the roof.; Paragraph S6.2(d) of the standard specifies that the initial contac point (with the roof) is on the longitudinal centerline of the lower surface of the test device and 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the centerline. Your second question asks whether this 10-inch dimension should be maintained if this places the leading edge of the test device behind the leading edge of the roof and the A-pillars. You state that this would occur with certain roof configurations which tend to be high in the center (i.e., in which the leading edge of the roof is not the highest point of the roof). A manufacturer should adhere to the 10-inch dimension even if this means the leading edge of the test device will not be forward of the A-pillar and the roof's forward edge. The test procedures specified are standardized procedures which the agency applies to all passenger cars regardless of roof configuration. Thus, the agency would maintain the 10-inch dimension even when testing a roof with a higher center than its leading edge.; I would like to point out, however, that the test procedures specifie in the safety standards only document how the agency will conduct its compliance tests. Manufacturers are not required to test vehicles according to the procedures specified. A manufacturer's responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles are in fact in compliance with the standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). If you are convinced that the procedures mentioned in your letter would accurately test the compliance of a particular vehicle with Safety Standard No. 216, you are certainly permitted to use those procedures. It is up to the manufacturer, however, to determine whether it has in fact exercised due care to determine compliance.; I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel