ID: nht90-4.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James R. Mitzenberg -- Project Engineer, The Flxible Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-25-90 from J.R. Mitzenberg to S.P. Wood (OCC 4371)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your company offers an optional transmission retarder for supplemental braking. It is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, air is emitted from the brake valve and t he service brakes are activated. You have asked whether a noncompliance with S4.5.4 would result. This section (now renumbered S5.5.4) states that the stop lamps shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. You point out that if the stop lamps are activated by the retarder, the stop lamps could be illuminated without the service brakes actually being applied during the initial travel of the service brake pedal, and up until the point in time that air is actually emitted from the brake p edal and into the service brake system.

In our opinion there is no failure to comply by the system as you have described it. We view application of the brake pedal as evidencing an intent to slow or stop the vehicle. Thus, the operation of the stop lamp is a consequence of the application of the brake pedal.

We appreciate your interest in enhancing safety with the added benefits that the retarder provides in early activation of the stop lamp.

ID: 2671y

Mr. James R. Mitzenberg
Project Engineer
The Flxible Corporation
970 Pittsburgh Drive
Delaware, Ohio 43015-2859

Dear Mr. Mitzenberg:

This is in reply to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

Your company offers an optional transmission retarder for supplemental braking. During initial travel of the service brake pedal, the retarder is electrically operated and the stop lamps are activated. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, air is emitted from the brake valve and the service brakes are activated. You have asked whether a noncompliance with S4.5.4 would result. This section (now renumbered S5.5.4) states that the stop lamps shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. You point out that if the stop lamps are activated by the retarder, the stop lamps could be illuminated without the service brakes actually being applied during the initial travel of the service brake pedal, and up until the point in time that air is actually emitted from the brake pedal and into the service brake system.

In our opinion, there is no failure to comply by the system as you have described it. We view application of the brake pedal as evidencing an intent to slow or stop the vehicle. Thus, the operation of the stop lamp is a consequence of the application of the brake pedal.

We appreciate your interest in enhancing safety with the added benefits that the retarder provides in early activation of the stop lamp.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref: 108 d:9/26/90

ID: aiam4194

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter concerning a newly designed Volvo chil safety seat. You stated that this child safety seat can be certified as complying with Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S 571.213), when secured only by a vehicle lap belt, in the rearward-facing mode for infants and in the forward-facing mode for toddlers. In addition, you indicate that this child safety seat can be used in certain vehicle specific installations in Volvo vehicles, and that the vehicle specific installations 'provide a higher level of protection.' You asked this agency's opinion as to whether this new child safety seat is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of Standard No. 213 and whether it can be used in both the universal application that is, secured by only a lap belt and Volvo vehicle-specific modes.; With respect to your first question, the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) provides no authority under which this agency can assure a manufacturer that its product has been designed in due care to comply with all applicable requirements or to otherwise 'approve' it. The Act establishes a process of self-certification under which a manufacturer is not required to submit a product to the agency for approval before sale, but simply to provide a certification to dealers and distributors that it does meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that product does not in fact comply, the manufacturer must notify and remedy the noncompliance according to the Act, and it is in presumptive violation of it (and therefore subject to civil penalties) unless it can establish that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the product was noncompliant. The statute thus provides an affirmative defense to the manufacturer, but it is a defense that does not arise until there is a violation of the Act, and the burden is upon the proponent to establish it.; Under the Act a product must comply at the time of sale to its firs purchaser for purposes other than resale. This means that a manufacturer's responsibility to insure compliance does not end at the design stage, but extends through manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product. In this context whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in the design stage can be an irrelevant question if the noncompliance was caused by an error in the manufacturing process which should have been detected and corrected, for example. For these reasons we cannot provide the opinion that you seek.; With respect to your second question, Volvo can recommend its chil seat for use with a lap belt in vehicles other than those manufactured by Volvo and for vehicle- specific uses in Volvo cars. The preamble to the 1979 final rule establishing Standard No. 213 included the following statement: 'As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions.' 44 FR 72131, at 72136, December 13, 1979. Therefore, Volvo can provide the vehicle-specific installation conditions for its child safety seat in Volvo automobiles. Please note that section S5.6 of Standard No. 213 requires manufacturers recommending vehicle-specific installations to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in those particular vehicles, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.; Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions o need more information on this subject.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: EF Technology

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robort Sprafka EF Technology 1405 North U.S. 27 St. Johns, MI 48879-0189

Dear Mr. Sprafka:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a school bus that has a natural gas fuel system as original equipment. As discussed below, Standard No. 301 does not apply to a natural gas fuel system.

Standard No. 301 sets fuel system integrity requirements for certain vehicle types, including school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. The standard, however, only applies to those vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32oF. Since natural gas does not have a boiling point above 32oF, the standard would not apply.

Although there are no safety standards applicable to natural gas fuel systems, manufacturers are responsible for any safety-related defects in their motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 151, et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed, provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge.

I am also enclosing, for your information, an agency letter discussing the legal responsibilities of persons who converted gasoline fuel systems to use propane and other gas.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: nht93-1.46

DATE: February 22, 1993

FROM: Cleo Betts -- Director of Engineering, Coachmen Recreational Vehicle Company

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-30-93 from John Womack to Cleo Betts (A41; Std. 207; Part 571)

TEXT: Thank you for your assistance in answering my questions relative to free standing furniture in a motorized vehicle and I appreciate your offer to provide a written interpretation of the standards. As we discussed, my questions deal with a dinette and associated chairs in a moving motorhome.

To meet regulatory standards, must the dinette table and its associated chairs be secured to the floor? If the dinette chairs are not secured to the floor, do they qualify as a designated seat position? Should a dinette chair be attached to the floor, must it be a designed seat?

In our phone conversation, you indicated a free standing dinette and chairs would be viewed as temporary furniture and would not be required to meet the federal standards. I also understood labeling is not required but we did discuss that labeling may be more closely associated with product liability then federal regulations.

As you can tell by my questions, we are desirous of developing a motorized recreational vehicle with free standing dinette and chairs. We are very sensitive to complying with federal standards and want to understand how such furniture usage fits within or outside of the standards.

Please identify which sections and paragraph in the standard,that you selected in developing your response. If you would, please include information so I may order the most current standard book.

You were very helpful during our phone conversation and am looking forward to receiving your written reply.

ID: aiam3856

Dear Mr. Alexander: This responds to your March 20, 1984, letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the Federal school bus safety standards administered by this agency. You asked three questions regarding passenger seating in school buses and the classification of vehicles as school buses.; Specifically, your questions asked: >>>(a) There are 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 people in a school bus. For purposes of the definition of a school bus, is the driver a passenger?<<<; Section 571.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines a 'school bus as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define 'bus' as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The driver is considered a 'person' under our regulations. Thus, it may be useful to remember that any vehicle that carries more than 10 *persons* is a bus. Your vehicle which seats 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 persons, would not be considered a school bus.; >>>(b) If a van is originally designed for 11 passengers plus a drive and, because the definition of a school bus, the school system desires to alter the number of seat spaces by removing seats so that the van will accommodate 9 pupils plus the driver, will this alteration in any way conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity? (I would assume that any structural changes would place liability in the event of accident attributable to that alteration on the local school system making the change.) <<<; In asking whether the alteration will 'conflict with the definition o vehicle capacity,' we assume that you are asking whether removing the seats of the vehicle changes the classification of that vehicle as a bus. Your letter is not clear whether it is a dealer who will be modifying the vehicle prior to its sale to the school system, after its sale to the school system, or whether the school itself will be modifying the bus after purchasing the vehicle. We will address these situations in our answer.; Altering an 11-passenger van by removing some of its seats so that i would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would classify it as a bus is, in theory, permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification before the vehicle is sold to you, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, *Certification*, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type from a bus to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to that new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses.; If the modifications to the vehicle are made by a business such as garage after you purchase the vehicle, the persons modifying the vehicle must not knowing (sic) render inoperative the compliance of your vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from rendering inoperative equipment or designs that are incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that a person in any of the above categories would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by the removal of the seat.; The prohibition against rendering inoperative does not apply to a owner, such as a school or a state, which modifies its own vehicles. A school modifying its own vehicles need not assure that the vehicles comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, you are correct in assuming that your school could incur substantial tort liability in the event of an accident involving a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards. This matter should be discussed with your insurance company and attorney. You should further determine whether your State law would prohibit the use of these vehicles to transport school children.; >>>(c) On a 60-passenger school bus, all of the seats except the thre rows in the front are removed. Each seat is 39 inches in width and is used to accommodate two high school pupils. The vehicle color is something other than yellow. A floor-to-ceiling barrier, with an emergency opening, is installed behind the three rows of seats. Supplies, materials, tools, equipment, etc., are transported in the rear of the vehicle with up to 12 youngsters plus the driver in the front portion. Given that all these factors exist at one time, will this vehicle be in conflict with any federal standards? If so, which ones?<<<; There are several areas of school bus safety which could be affected b the proposed modification of the vehicle. Since the vehicle will be carrying more than 10 persons, it is categorized as a bus, and classified by its use as a school bus. A threshold issue related to the question you asked concerns, again, the possibility that removing the bus seats will render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the Federal school bus safety standards. The issue depends on whether it is a garage-type business that will be altering the bus, or the school. Modification of a safety system so that it no longer complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture would be a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). As discussed earlier, this prohibition does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a state, which modifies its own vehicles. A school may make any modification that it chooses to its buses. Such action does not violate the Vehicle Safety Act or render the school subject to any penalty under the Act.; However, as you know, private liability might occur if th modifications took the vehicle out of compliance with the safety standard and a student was subsequently injured in one of the buses. Accordingly, the modifications you make should not negatively affect the compliance of your vehicle with the safety standards.; The removal of the bus seats does not appear likely to affect adversel your vehicle's compliance with the Federal safety standards. Those standards do not require the installation of any specific seats or any specified number of seats in school buses. Instead, the standards specify that certain requirements must be met for any seat that is installed. Therefore, if the bus complied with the requirements of the Federal school bus safety standards before its alteration, the proper removal of the seats would not affect the vehicle's compliance.; You propose to install a floor-to-ceiling barrier in the vehicle behin the three rows of seats. Your letter does not describe this barrier in detail, but states that it contains an emergency opening. We are concerned that this barrier would render the vehicle in noncompliance with the requirements for emergency exits found in FMVSS No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; Standard No. 217 regulates the number and size of school bus emergenc exits and requires that the release mechanisms of those exits be readily accessible. The purpose of these requirements is to provide an easily operable, unobstructed school bus emergency exit. In the past, the agency has preempted a State requirement for a safety chain that would have been placed across an exit, because we viewed the chain as providing an obstruction to the opening. We have also interpreted the Standard to prohibit a ramp used for transporting the handicapped when the ramp partially blocked the rear emergency exit when it folded into the bus. Your letter did not describe in detail the floor-to-ceiling barrier in your bus and we are unable to form an opinion as to the compliance of the altered vehicle with Standard No. 217. However, if the barrier provides an impediment to the emergency exit then the alteration might conflict with FMVSS No. 217. Further, if the barrier conflicted with Standard No. 217, then it could not be added as aftermarket equipment by any manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, without rendering inoperative the compliance of the bus with the safety standard.; Finally, you indicated that the school bus would be a color other tha yellow. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly permitted school vehicles carrying 16 or less students to or from school (i.e., 'Type II' school vehicles) to be marked, painted, and lighted in one of two ways. The buses could be either marked, painted, and lighted as school buses, or marked painted, and lighted differently than school buses. However, all school buses now must have the lighting of a school bus required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. since all school buses must have the lighting of a school bus, under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 they also must have the painting and marking of a school bus.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4240

Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Bridge Ernst, regarding our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.; In her letter to you, Ms. Ernst enclosed materials issued by th National Coalition for Seat Belts on School Buses which explained why the Coalition believes safety belts should be required by Federal law on all school buses. You asked us to discuss the main counter-arguments against such a requirement, and asked also whether any Federal legislation has been introduced recently to increase the safety requirement on school buses. I am pleased to respond.; I would like to begin with some background information on our schoo bus regulations. 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. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to improve school bus safety. Our school bus safety standards apply to various aspects of vehicle performance, including school bus windows and windshields, emergency exits, fuel systems and passenger seating and crash protection.; The safety belt issue your constituent raises involves the safet standard we issued 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.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of the school bus be improved 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 during an accident. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of their actions to use safety belts. Standard No. 222 requires safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since belts are needed on those vehicles to provide adequate crash protection.; The information from the Coalition that Ms. Ernst enclosed in he letter to you states that safety belts are needed on all school buses to protect children and keep them within their seating compartment in the event of a collision or rollover. We believe that effective passenger crash protection and containment is already provided by compartmentalization and that it would be inappropriate to issue a Federal mandate for safety belts on all school buses. While the effects of compartmentalization are expected to be greater in crashes involving front or rear impacts, the standard also has potential in side impacts and rollovers by minimizing the 'hostility' of the crash environment and by limiting the range of movement of an occupant in those two types of crashes.; For your information, I have enclosed a DOT report, 'Seat Belts i School Buses' (June 1985), which provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by your constituent. As explained in the report, school buses in this country have compiled an excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses incorporate more safety by virtue of their greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. Thus, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities is not the same as that for other vehicles, such as passenger cars. Because the safety record of large school buses is very good, we must conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts is not justified at this time.; The Coalition's material enclosed by Ms. Ernst included a statemen indicating that NHTSA 'supports local district seat belt programs.' NHTSA permits the voluntary installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses if the purchaser wishes to have belts installed. We believe that such a decision should be made by individual schools and school districts that have made a reasoned assessment of their particular pupil transportation needs. However, because there are many effective ways to improve pupil transportation safety, such as improving driver training and school bus maintenance programs, it would be inappropriate for us to endorse local district programs for safety belts on school buses. Therefore, for purposes of clarification, we neither support nor discourage school districts' decisions to install safety belts on their large school buses.; You asked about any Federal legislation that had been recentl introduced to increase the safety of school buses. The Administration has not proposed any legislation affecting school buses. However, two bills were introduced in the 99th Congress concerning school buses. H.R. 3129 contained a provision calling for a school bus safety study to determine the measures most effective in protecting the safety of school children. H.R. 749 proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. Neither H.R. 3129 nor H.R. 749 was enacted.; In addition, NHTSA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amen Standard No. 222 by setting performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed in large school buses. If adopted, this rule would require safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses to meet Federal safety belt standards for strength and proper installation.; We are evaluating the comments submitted on our proposal and a fina decision on the rulemaking action is expected in the near future.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we ca be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0463

Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1971, in which yo posed two related questions concerning the use of passive seat belt systems to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208.; The passive seat belt section S4.5.3, was added by the notice of Jul 8, 1971, 'to make it clear that redundant active belts need not be used if passive belts are used to meet any option requiring Type 1 or Type 2 belts.' If you choose to install a passive belt system, you do not have to provide a separate active system.; In response to your second question, S4.5.3 expressly provides that passive seat belt assembly may be used in place of a seat belt assembly that conforms to the warning system requirements of S7.3. If a passive seat belt conforming to S4.5.3 is used to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.2, it must comply with paragraph (b) of S4.1.2.2 but need not comply with paragraph (a), (c) or (d).; Please advise us if your questions have not been adequately answered. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: 7641

Mr. Dan Trexler
Thomas Built Buses
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Mr. Trexler:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your questions about requirements addressing the activation of a stop signal arm and the permissibility of a manual override device. In addition, I am enclosing a September 14, 1992 interpretation letter from this agency to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, which explains these requirements.

As your letter indicates, there are two different types of lamp systems on school buses: a four lamp system with four red lamps and an eight lamp system with four amber and four red lamps. You asked several questions about the stop arm's activation and the manual override device.

You first ask whether the stop arm is required to extend every time the signal lamps in a four lamp system are activated. (emphasis in original). As a general rule, S5.5 of Standard No. 131 requires that the stop arm be automatically extended at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps are activated. Nevertheless, Standard No. 131 includes an exception to this general rule which permits the installation of an override device. If the override device were activated, then the stop arm would not extend.

Your second question addresses the operation of the stop arm on buses with an eight lamp system. Specifically, you ask whether the stop arm is required to extend only after the red signal lamps have been activated by opening of the bus entrance door or is the stop arm required to extend at any time the red signal lamps are activated. (emphasis in original).

As stated above, Standard No. 131 includes provisions addressing the activation of the stop signal arm. Standard No. 131 requires the stop arm to be automatically extended whenever the red signal lamps are activated, whether those lamps are activated by opening the bus door or for some other reason. Of course, the stop arm may be extended for a longer period of time than when the red signal lamps are activated, given that Standard No. 131 includes the phrase "at a minimum" in explaining when the stop arm must be extended. In the final rule establishing Standard No. 131, the agency addressed methods of stop arm activation used by Washington State, Illinois, and Florida in which the stop arm was activated to control traffic before the door was opened. (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991).

Your third question asked whether a device may be used that is capable of remaining in the "override" position with only a one time activation by the driver. The override would have an audible signal that would automatically sound for at least 60 seconds and would automatically recycle each time the service door was opened, with the engine running. As mentioned above, Standard No. 131 permits a device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm. In our September 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Lyle Walheim from the State of Wisconsin, we explain a situation in which an override would be permissible. Based on S5.5 of Standard No. 131 and the September 14, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Walheim, it would appear that the override device you describe also would be permissible.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:131 d:10/2/92

ID: aiam0024

Dear Mr. Hollyfield: Mr. Arnold Wise has asked that I answer your letter of April 14, 1967 concerning a clarification of several requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207, 208, and 209.; I am enclosing copies of the *Federal Register* of August 31, 1966, an February 3, 1967, which provide all of the information which you require. You will note that Standard No. 207 is concerned with the anchorage of the seats - not seat belts. Standard No. 208 requires seat belts in all passenger cars manufactured after January 1, 1968. In a regular size, four door, sedan-type vehicle with regular undivided seats, six lap belts would be required and, in addition, upper torso restraints would be required in the front outboard seats if the windshield header is in the head impact area.; The installation of seat belts in other than passenger cars is no required by the initial standards. However, any seat belts that are manufactured after March 1, 1967, must conform to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; Your interest in the traffic safety program of this Bureau i appreciated.; Sincerely, George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;