ID: aiam4528

Dear Mr. Bosco: This is in reply to your letter of June l6, l988, wit reference to your constituent Jerry Yost of Occidental. Thank you for enclosing our previous correspondence on Mr. Yost's C-More Light invention. This device is a relay which would allow a headlamp's lower beam to remain in operation when the upper beam is activated. In my reply of August 3, l987, I advised you that the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard explicitly prohibits simultaneous activation of upper and lower beams in four-lamp headlighting systems other than the one we call Type F (S4.5.8 of 49 CFR 57l.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). I explained that our historical concern has been that the maximum candlepower limitations of the Federal standard might be exceeded. In your latest letter, you have enclosed a copy of a test report by Industrial Testing Laboratories and a letter from the California Highway Patrol. You have asked the steps, if any, that Mr. Yost should take to market legally his device. The test report is intended to show that maximum candela will not be exceeded when the device is used in a four-lamp headlamp system. California advised that the device appeared legal to install on vehicles equipped with Type F headlamp systems, and that 'this system is also permitted by California law as long as the photometric output is within the standards established for any other type of headlight. The ITL tests appear to show compliance'. We have reviewed the ITL test report, and find it indicative of the features and limitations of Mr. Yost's system. The test report shows a failure of the dual filament 2A1 lamp (second column from the left) at test point 4D-V where 3490 candlepower is measured. Note the maximum limitation of 2500 candlepower at that test point (third column from the right, same line). Contrasted with this is an unusually low reading of 2540 candlepower for the same test point with the single filament 1A1 lamp (third column from the left) when up to 5000 candela is allowed (fourth column from the right). The net result, however, is that the combined maximum of 6030 candlepower (fourth column from the left) is well within the allowable 7500 maximum of Standard No. 108 (first column from the right). In essence, the test report indicates that the light at test point 4D-V produced by the system under test does not achieve the balance contemplated by the standard, although the light at other test points meets the requirements of the standard. While the test report indicates that a system using the lamps tested might conform to Standard No. 108, this was achieved by using what appear to be two lamps of moderate performance. The agency believes it likely that replacement headlamps for such a system would more likely approach the maxima prescribed for 4D-V and other test points for Type 1A1 and 2A1 headlamps with the result that simultaneous operation of upper and lower beams would exceed the established limits. In other words, although an original equipment headlighting system using the relay might meet Federal photometric specifications, there is no assurance that replacement lights would. Type F systems have been designed to preclude exceeding the maxima. Thus, our concern remains for lighting systems using lamps other than Type F. The agency's views on simultaneous operation are discussed in further detail in a Federal Register notice published in l986, a copy of which I enclose (Docket No. 81-11, Notice l4). As I indicated before Mr. Yost's device may be legally installed as original or aftermarket equipment on any passenger car equipped with a Type F headlamp system. Use with any other original equipment headlighting system is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 108. As for aftermarket applications other than Type F, he should be aware of the statutory section (15 USC 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibiting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard if installation of the relay would result in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We are providing a copy of this letter to the California Highway Patrol so that it may be aware of our views on this subject. Mr. Yost and the agency share a common desire to improve foreground lighting, a subject currently under study at NHTSA. We appreciate his interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001;

ID: aiam4046

Dear Mr. Seiferheld: This responds to your letter asking about 49 CFR Part 581, *Bumpe Standard*. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are considering integrating fog-taillight assemblies in the rear bumper of a car and asked about relevant requirements. You noted in your letter that section S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) states that '(n)o additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.' You stated that this paragraph seems to be relevant but that it is unclear to you.; Both Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, and Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamp Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, are relevant to the location of fog-taillamp assemblies in the rear bumper. Fog lamps are lighting devices that are not covered by Standard No. 108. Therefore two questions must be asked: are they permissible, and if so, may they be combined with items of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Under section S4.1.3, quoted above, fog lamps are permissible provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, the question cannot be answered without reference to whether its combination with the taillamp is permitted, for from the photo and drawing submitted, both appear combined in a single housing incorporating, we assume, one filament for each function. Both lamps are 'position lamps', indicating the present of the vehicle in the roadway ahead to a driver who is following behind. The fog lamp is intended to be activated under extreme conditions of reduced visibility, and hence, would appear to increase the effectiveness of the taillamp rather than impair it. Section S4.4 of Standard No. 108 prohibits combining taillamps only with clearance lamps (not required lighting equipment for passenger cars), and thus combining the taillamp and fog lamp functions are permissible. Section S4.3.1.1 of the standard specifies, among other things, that no part of the vehicle may prevent a taillamp from meeting its photometric output at specified test points. Further, a taillamp located in the bumper must also meet the visibility requirements of SAE Standard J585e *Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps)*, September 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of J585e taillamps must be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right, to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface (excluding reflex), not less than 2 square inches measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.; Finally, Part 581 *Bumper Standard* specifies requirements for th impact resistance of vehicles in low speed front and rear collisions. Vehicles must be capable of meeting certain damage criteria, following specified test impacts. Among other things, lamps must be free of cracks and comply with applicable visibility requirements of section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 following the impacts.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.46

DATE: 03/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your September 12, 1978, letter requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. The responses to your specific questions regarding the compliance of your prototype monitor of vehicle systems are as follows:

1. When there is no problem with the vehicle systems included in the monitor, only the outline of a car is visible. The displays for items such as oil and electrical charge would not be illuminated. You asked if the monitor in its "no problem" model would comply with FMVSS 101-80. The answer is yes. There is no requirement that the displays be continuously illuminated.

2. On the monitor, the high beam symbol would be oriented so that it pointed upward. You asked whether this complies with the standard even though the symbol appears in Table 2 of the standard pointing to the left. The answer is yes. The requirement in section 5.2.3 that the display symbol appear preceptually upright to the driver was not intended to apply to the situation in which the symbol is used in conjunction with a car diagram of the type in your monitor. In such situations, it would be more confusing to place the symbol in the upright position than to orient the symbol so that it bears the same relationship to the diagram as the symbolized equipment does to the actual vehicle.

SINCERELY,

(Graphics omitted)

September 12, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Levin:

Subaru is designing a new instrument, monitor panel for future U.S. vehicle application. We are concerned about its compliance to the new FMVSS, SS101-80.

The new monitor panel will have a white lined symbol of a car, the front of the car will be at the top of the drawing. It will be on a dark green background. Telltale symbols and descriptive words will be within and around the car drawing as representative of functions or mal-function conditions. To identify a special condition a light-emitting devise will illuminate a symbol or symbol and words. At this time we request your approval on two issues as addressed below.

1. When the Subaru is being driven in daylight and there are no problems to cause any of the telltale devises to be illuminated, only the white outline of a car is visible. Our prototype monitor is shown in the enclosed photos. Photo "A" is representative of a "no problem" condition in daylight; is it in compliance to Standard 101-80?

2. We would like to display the high beam symbol and telltale in a different position than the standard, specifically, 90 degrees clockwise. We feel the repositioning of the high beam symbol will be more representative to the car outline with the head-lamps pointing ahead rather than to the left. The lamp to display a high beam "on" condition will be the color blue. Our photo "C" and diagram "E" demonstrates what we plan to do, particularly in regard to a high beam in "use" condition.

Does the above conform to FMVSS 101-80?

Paul Utans Assoc. Vice President Product Compliance

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam0247

Dear Mr. Shrake: This is in response to your letter of July 23, 1970, in which you aske for the Bureau's interpretation of the phrase, 'designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area.'; The phrases 'designated seating position' and 'head impact area' ar both defined in the general Definitions section of the standards, 49 CFR 571.3. The remaining substantive phrase, 'windshield header,' is not defined in the standards. It is intended to refer to the portion of the interior of the vehicle immediately above the top of the windshield, usually but not necessarily a strip a molding separating the glass from the interior roof.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: nht87-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Miller

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Miller Arizona Bus Sales, Inc. P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix, AZ 85036 Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your April 14, 1987 letter to us asking about Federal requirements applicable to the sale of new school buses. You enclosed a copy of a bid from a school bus dealer offering to sell a 48-passenger activity bus to a school district. The b id describes options for changing the school bus paint and deleting "school options." You ask whether a bid with "an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options" accords with our school bus regulations.

The answer to your question depends on the nature of the "school options" which the bid makes nonobligatory. It is unclear from the bid whether the reference is to the school bus performance requirements mandated by our federal motor vehicle safety stand ards, or to the way the school bus is painted and marked. If the "school options" are the features required by Federal school bus safety standards, the answer to your question is no--i.e., the dealer may not sell a new school bus that fails to comply wit h those standards. On the other hand, Federal law does not prohibit school districts from changing the color or markings of their school buses. Instead, requirements for the identification of school buses are set by each State.

Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes our motor vehicle safety stand ards for school buses. Those standards set performance requirements that all new school buses must meet, including standards for passenger crash protection, emergency exits, rollover protection and fuel systems. The Safety Act requires manufacturers of s chool buses to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. The Act also requires school bus dealers to ensure that only complying school buses are sold. These requirements, set by federal law, apply to each school bus manufacturer and seller. A school bus dealer cannot elect whether to comply with those requirements and choose to sell a new activity bus that does not comply with our school bus safety standards.

Our second set of school bus "regulations," issued under the Highway Safety Act, include recommendations for identifying school buses. These recommendations are set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclos ed). While the "standard" recommends that activity buses should be painted yellow and marked "School Bus," the decision to adopt its recommendations is made by each State. Therefore, questions you might have about activity bus identification should be ad dressed to your State officials.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington,DC 20590 Attn: Erika Z. Jones

Ms. Jones:

Enclosed is a copy of a bid from an Arizona school Bus dealer offering a new bus for sale to a school district, with an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options.

In the past we have declined such invitations believing that such a sale would be in violation of federal law pertaining to the sale of school buses.

I would very much appreciate your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely ,

Paul Miller Sales Manager PM/md

Parker Unified District No. 27 P.O. Box 1089 Parker, Arizona 85344 Attn: Mr. Art Fox

April 10, 1987 Quotation No. B-748 Subject: Activity Bus

One Blue Bird All American Rear Engine 48 Passenger Activity Bus including all standard equipment and the following options:

Caterpillar 3208 Turbocharged 225 H.P. Diesel Engine with 5 Year/150,000 Mile Extended Warranty.

Allison MT643 4-speed Automatic Transmission with 3 Year/Unlimited Mileage Warranty.

Stemco front wheel seals

Rockwell 6" front and 8" rear brakes

Engine hour meter

Transmission temperature gauge

120 gallon fuel tank

11R x 22.5 Michelin Radial Tubeless Tires, including spare

Push-thru luggage compartment, 116 cu. ft. with locks

vandal locks on all doors

High headroom

Two 6" defroster fans

12,000 BTU driver's heater, 80,000 BTU center heater, 80,000 BTU rear heater Eight light warning system

AM/PM/Cassett/PA/Stereo Radio

12 rows of Blue Bird Activity Seats meeting FMVSS

Full width mud flaps Front and rear rubber fenders

5 lb. fire extinguisher

16 Unit first Aid Kit

Triangles and flares

Tan floor with plywood sub-floor

Interior parcel racks

Intermittent wipers

Tinted windows

Trans/Air Air Conditioning Model TA99 Dual System with two 15.6 compressors

full length luggage rack ducts with adjustable louvers, two 3-fan roof mounted condensors for a total of 106,000 BTU/hr

Price including transportation with tax to be added:

Option: Two-tone paint with school options deleted as required, Add:

MAKE YEAR MODEL W B. CA

THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM IT'S DATE.

ID: aiam1906

Dear Dr. Sachs: In response to your request of April 4, 1975, I am enclosing a copy o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, several *Federal Register* notices which have modified the basic standard, and the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. Also enclosed is a circular explaining how all the safety standards and regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may be obtained.; Until October 29, 1974, section S4.1.2 of the standard required a ignition interlock on 1974- and 1975-model passenger cars. As noted in the enclosed amendment (Docket 74-39, Notice 1), recent legislation mandated the deletion of this requirement, which was accomplished by NHTSA on October 29, 1974.; Manufacturers may now meet Standard No. 208 by providing (1) lap an shoulder belts at front outboard positions and lap belts at other positions, and (2) a continuous or flashing reminder light that operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated and a continuous or intermittent audible warning signal which operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated if the driver's lap belt is not in use. They may also provide certain types of 'passive restraint' devices in place of the seat belt assemblies.; Although the seat-belt interlock system is not prohibited, it is n longer a means of complying with the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2623

Dear Mr. Rehm: This responds to your letter of June 21, 1977, requesting our office t advise the U.S. Customs Service that a new 'camper' vehicle manufactured by Subaru would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in contradiction of a previous letter from the NHTSA to Customs.; As noted by Mr. Armstrong of this agency in his letter of January 17 1977, to the Customs Service, the NHTSA does not assign or approve in advance a classification for a particular vehicle design. Any ultimate agency determination as to vehicle classification would generally arise only in the context of compliance or enforcement proceedings. The NHTSA does issue advance opinions concerning vehicle classification when requested to do so by vehicle manufacturers. These opinions are necessarily qualified, however, by statements that the opinion is based solely on the description of the vehicle as supplied by the person making the request. Our opinion as to classification is, of course, dependent on the manner in which the vehicle is described.; As defined in 49 CFR 571.3, a 'truck' is a motor vehicle designe primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. A 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined in Section 571.3 as a vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less which is contructed (sic) either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. The Subaru 'camper' is constructed on a truck chassis and has special features for off-road use (4-wheel drive), which would qualify it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Therefore, the determinative question is whether the Subaru vehicle is designed primarily for carrying property, in which case it would be classified a truck.; In spite of Subaru vehicle's resemblance to a pick-up truck o Ranchero, there is a basic distinction in design. In the case of a pick-up or Ranchero truck there is a separate vehicle area that is clearly designed for cargo-carrying alone. In the case of the Subaru vehicle, however, the manufacturer has placed seats for two people in that area that would ordinarily be used for carrying property. Since the manufacturer has chosen to use that area for the purpose of carrying passengers, it cannot be said that the vehicle is designed *primarily* for carrying property.; Based on this rationale, the NHTSA concludes that the Subaru 'camper qualifies as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle,' and that the preliminary opinion of the Office of Standards Enforcement was inaccurate. I would point out, however, that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles are equally as stringent as the standard applicable to trucks, if not more so.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5485

"Dear Mr. Shultz: This responds to your letter asking about Part 583 Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You noted that section 583.6 specifies that manufacturers are to determine the percentage U.S./Canadian Parts Content for each carline on a model year basis, before the beginning of each model year. You stated, however, that the regulation does not indicate what should be done when there is a change of plans in the source of production for a particular carline in the middle of the model year. According to your letter, one of your carlines currently in production will now be manufactured in both the U.S. and Japan, which may significantly affect the carline's current calculation for content as well as the final assembly point. You requested confirmation whether the label should be changed to reflect the change in domestic/foreign content in the middle of the model year or whether section 583.6 should be relied on as the authority for determining a carline's content only on a one-time model year basis. You also requested confirmation as to whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, section 583.5(a) requires manufacturers to provide five basic items of information on the label: (1) U.S./Canadian parts content, (2) Major sources of foreign parts content, (3) Final assembly point, (4) Country of origin for the engine, and (5) Country of origin for the transmission. The first two items are determined on a 'carline' basis, the last three items are determined with respect to individual vehicles. Both Part 583 and the American Automobile Labeling Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32304) contemplate that U.S./Canadian parts content and Major sources of foreign parts content are determined on a once-a-model-year basis for a particular carline. In particular, section 32304(b)(2) reads as follows: At the beginning of each model year, each manufacturer shall establish the percentages required for each carline to be indicated on the label . . . . Those percentages are applicable to that carline for the entire model year. . . . We believe that Congress included this provision to reduce unnecessary manufacturer costs, and was seeking to make it clear that the manufacturers could not be required to revise their calculations during the model year. The specified percentages are estimates by nature, and the assumptions underlying them are subject to change during the model year. It would be very burdensome to manufacturers to be required to constantly recalculate the estimated percentages throughout the model year. Your letter raises the issue, however, of whether a manufacturer is permitted to revise the carline percentages in the event of a major change in source of production during a model year. It is our opinion that a manufacturer may revise the percentages in such circumstances, at its option. Such revision would be analogous to correcting an error and would prevent the possibility of misleading consumers. If you do make such a revision, however, the revised estimates should reflect the model year as a whole and not just the balance of the model year. In addition, the label should include a note indicating that the carline percentages have been revised during the model year. This is necessary to prevent confusion when consumers compare the labels of vehicles within the same carline manufactured at different times. You also asked whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Since final assembly point is determined for individual vehicles rather than carlines, the label must be changed to indicate the actual final assembly point of the vehicle. See section 583.5(a)(3). The section which you cited, i.e., section 583.5(e), permits manufacturers to provide additional information for carlines assembled in the U.S./Canada and in one or more other countries. Since your carline would now be assembled in the U.S./Canada and Japan, your company may avail itself of this option. I note that section 583.5(e)(3) provides that a manufacturer selecting this option for a particular carline must provide the specified additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline. In your situation, you would need to provide the additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline, beginning from the time the vehicles were manufactured in both places. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: nht92-2.26

DATE: 11/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JESS R. THURMAN

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-01-92 FROM JESS R. THURMAN TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 7822)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 1, 1992 requesting information on whether certain modifications can be made to a van to make room for a wheelchair to enter the vehicle. You explained that you currently own a 1993 Ford van with a lift. The passenger seats behind the front seats were moved back in your 1983 van to make room for the wheelchair lift. You are currently trying to purchase a new Ford van with the same modifications but have been told that federal law no longer permits moving seats or safety belts. As explained below, there is no federal requirement that expressly prohibits moving seats and safety belts, provided that the relocated seats and belts continue to comply with the applicable safety standards.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if a vehicle were originally manufactured in the manner you have described, the manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. If some party were to modify a vehicle along the lines described in your letter before the vehicle's first sale to a consumer like yourself, that party would be required to leave the original manufacturer's certification in place and add its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards.

Moving the rear seats and the seat belts for those seats could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Based upon the information in your letter, it appears that the vehicle you wish to have modified would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of NHTSA's regulations. Standard No. 208 requires an MPV to have a lap/shoulder belt at every rear outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other rear seating position. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages.

Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that modifies a van for you along the lines described in your letter after you have purchased the van would be subject to the requirement of the Safety Act (at 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A) that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Since the rear seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design installed in the van in compliance with applicable safety standards, this section prohibits any of the named commercial entities from making any modification or repair to the rear seats and/or their accompanying safety belts if such modification or repair would cause the vehicle no longer to comply with an applicable safety standard.

As you can see, there is nothing in Federal law that prohibits persons from moving rear seats and their accompanying safety belts. Instead, Federal law requires that modifications to a van that include moving the rear seats and the safety belts be done in such a way that the repositioned seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards.

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

ID: 16190.ogm

Mr. Cesar Robles Gonzales
#10282-016
USP Allenwood
P.O. Box 3000
White Deer, PA 17887

Dear Mr. Gonzales:

This is in response to your request regarding seat belts for buses. Specifically, you are interested in seat belt requirements for charter and other buses operated by private bus lines.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

Large buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)over 10,000 pounds, are not required to have seat belts for occupants other than the driver. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) sets forth the crash protection requirements applicable to most vehicle types. Section S4.4 of that standard sets forth the requirements applicable to large buses other than school buses. That section requires large buses to have either a complete automatic protection system for the bus driver's seating position, or a seat belt assembly that conforms with Standard No. 209 at the driver's seating position. Standard No. 208 does not specify any requirements for either an automatic protection system or seat belt assemblies to be installed at any other seating positions in large buses.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.12/11/97