ID: 11349Atxt

Sgt. Stephan C. Turner
Commander
Bus Inspection Unit
Michigan Department of State Police
300 North Clippert
Lansing, MI 48913

Dear Sgt. Turner:

This responds to your letter asking how Federal regulations apply to full-size passenger vans used for school transportation. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask us specific questions about information a local dealer provided you. You also pose hypothetical situations about how Federal law regulates the sale and lease of new vehicles with different seating capacities and configurations.

Some background information may be helpful in understanding our regulations. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended this statute (then called the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) to direct NHTSA to issue FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. The Act requires each person selling or leasing a new Abus@ for pupil transportation to ensure that the vehicle is a certified school bus.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture, sale and lease of new school buses, this agency does not regulate used vehicles, or the use of vehicles. The requirements that apply to the use of school vehicles are set by the State.

Your specific questions are set forth below, followed by our answers.

QUESTION #1: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to used vehicles, including 12-passenger vans?

ANSWER: No. While NHTSA has a statutory provision relating to the repair and modification of used vehicles, our statutory provisions and standards generally apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Since our standards do not apply to used motor vehicles--vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--sale or lease transactions involving used school buses are not covered by Chapter 301. Thus, there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling or leasing any used vehicle for school purposes, even if the vehicle does not comply with the school bus standards.

QUESTION #2: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to vehicles used only occasionally for school purposes (not for regularly scheduled pupil transportation)?

ANSWER: Our answer depends on how Aoccasionally@ the vehicle is used for pupil transportation. NHTSA does not prohibit the occasional rental of a van or other vehicle that does not meet the school bus standards. However, when the arrangement involves more than a one- time or very occasional rental for a special school activity, the use of the vehicle has to be examined to determine whether the bus is Aused significantly@ to transport students.

The starting point of our answer is section 30125 of Chapter 301, which sets forth the Congressional directive on school bus safety. That section defines Aschoolbus@ as:

a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school. (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has not defined the term Aused significantly@ as it is used in this statutory provision. Instead, we answer whether a motor vehicle is Alikely to be used significantly@ for transporting students on a case-by- case basis. Use of a vehicle to carry students Aseveral times a week@ to school-related events, as mentioned in your letter, appears to constitute a long- term relationship between the dealer and the school to provide school transportation, which may require a school bus. I have enclosed a copy of a July 22, 1985 letter to Mr. D. Leeds Pickering that discusses the issue of bus leases and rentals.

QUESTION #3: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to full-size passenger vans which have had a seat removed, reducing seating capacity from 12 to 8?

ANSWER: It may be helpful to keep in mind that anytime a dealer sells or leases a new Abus@ (a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a school, that bus must be a certified school bus.

If a dealer permanently reduces the seating capacity of a bus to less than 11, the modified vehicle is no longer a Abus.@ Because the dealer would not be selling a bus, the requirement to sell a school bus does not apply. However, a dealer modifying a new vehicle in this manner would have other responsibilities as a vehicle Aalterer@ under our regulations (49 CFR '567.7). The dealer would be changing the vehicle=s classification to that of a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and would have to certify that the vehicle complies to the MPV standards.

Hypothetical situations. You ask whether a dealer would be violating NHTSA=s school bus requirements in two hypothetical situations.

Hypothetical #1: A dealer leases or sells a new full size passenger van to be used for occasional use for high school sports teams transporting players to games. The full size van comes standard with 5 seating positions. The identical van (same length, width, and manufacturer) can also be ordered with 8 or 12 seating positions. Would there be any federal violations in this scenario with 5, 8, or 12 seating positions? Would it make any difference if the vehicle in this scenario were used for regularly scheduled pupil transportation to and from school? Would it matter if the vehicle was a used 1995 van?

ANSWER: The main issue raised by this hypothetical is whether a 12-passenger van is a Aschool bus@ when ordered with five or eight seating positions.

Anytime a dealer sells or leases a new bus to a school, the vehicle has to be a school bus. The 12-passenger van is a Abus@ (capacity of 11 or more persons, driver included) and thus any new 12-passenger van sold to a school would have to be a school bus.

If the van=s seating capacity were permanently reduced to less than 11 before the vehicle=s sale, the van is no longer a Abus@ and thus is not subject to our school bus standards. The modified vehicle is considered an AMPV@ instead. While the dealer may sell or lease a new MPV to the school, the dealer altering the vehicle from a bus to an MPV must certify the vehicle as an MPV and ensure that it complies with the MPV standards, or face substantial penalties under our statute.

My discussion in the first part of this letter should answer the issues you raise relating to Aused@ vehicles and the Aoccasional@ use of the vehicle for pupil transportation.

Hypothetical No. 2: The dealer reduces the number of passenger seats in the van from 12 to 8 by removing the back (last) seat in the vehicle. Would it matter whether the extra seat in the back is easily removable on a track or is permanently bolted to the floor?

Our answer is yes, the ability to easily remove the extra seat affects whether the van is a Abus@ (and subject to the school bus standards) or an MPV. A person who removes a seat that is designed to be readily removable is not an alterer under our regulations, and would not be changing the vehicle type from a bus to an MPV. Thus, the dealer would be selling or leasing a Abus@ which is subject to the school bus standards. If the dealer were permanently removing seats that had been bolted to the floor, our answer to hypothetical #1 applies.

You also ask additional questions about the meaning of certain terms in the Congressional school bus definition. "Designed to carry" refers to the number of seating positions in the vehicle, which the vehicle manufacturer generally determines. "Events related to such schools" includes any activity connected to a school whether on or off school grounds, including sports events, band concerts, field trips, and competitions such as debate or chess tournaments.

For your information, I am also enclosing an August 1995 question-and-answer sheet about school bus issues of interest to school districts. If you have any further questions regarding Federal school bus requirements, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#571.3 D:4/2/96

ID: NCC-230308-001 NelsonMullinsParkingBrakeIndicatorInterp

October 31, 2024

Ms. Christie L. Iannetta
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
101 Constitution Ave, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001

Dear Ms. Iannetta:

This interpretation responds to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Light vehicle brake systems. Specifically, you asked about paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 135, which outlines the requirements for when certain brake indicators must be activated. Your question focuses on subparagraph (c), which requires that an indicator be activated when there is “[a]pplication of the parking brake.” You asked the agency to confirm that “a parking brake visual indicator that illuminates when a driver intentionally activates the electronic parking brake via the park brake control meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 135, S5.5.1(c), but that when the same electronic parking brake is automatically applied by the vehicle, the parking brake visual indicator may, but is not required, to illuminate to be considered compliant with this same provision.” Based on the information you have provided, our answer is that this requested confirmation does not provide an accurate understanding of FMVSS No. 135. To comply with FMVSS No. 135, a parking brake indicator must be activated whenever a parking brake is engaged, regardless of how the parking brake is applied.

Background
By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

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

FMVSS No. 135
FMVSS No. 135 establishes requirements for light vehicle braking systems. Paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 135 requires indicators to be activated when the ignition (start) switch is in the “on” (“run”) position and one or more of seven scenarios occur. Paragraph (c) of S5.5.1 requires an indicator to be activated upon “application of the parking brake.” So if the parking brake is applied and the vehicle’s ignition is in the “on” position, a parking brake indicator must be activated.

Your Question and NHTSA’s Response
In your letter, you describe a manufacturer’s Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) system. You indicate the EPB system is integrated into the rear foundation brake calipers and is not separately serviceable. Your letter states that the EPB can be applied manually by the driver or automatically by the system. When the driver manually applies the parking brake control, upon successful confirmation of engagement of the EPB, a visual indicator appears on the user interface in plain view of the driver. You state that the EPB visual indicator remains illuminated while the EPB is engaged as a reminder to the driver to manually release the parking brake before driving.

In addition to the manual application of the parking brake, your letter indicates that there are scenarios when the EPB automatically engages, even when the driver does not manually activate the EPB, including when the vehicle is shifted into park. You explain that if a driver puts the vehicle in park and does not manually apply the parking brake, the vehicle will automatically apply the EPB. If the vehicle automatically applies the EPB, the parking brake indicator is not activated. Lastly, you indicate that when the driver shifts out of park, the EPB system is automatically deactivated.

In your letter, you assert the manufacturer’s view that this system is compliant with FMVSS No. 135 S5.5.1(c) because the regulation requires display of the parking brake only when the driver manually applies the parking brake. You point to previous interpretations that NHTSA has published, where we explain that the parking brake indicator requirement was promulgated to ensure drivers do not drive with the parking brake engaged. You assert that because the manufacturer’s EPB system eliminates this risk, the system should be considered compliant. Additionally, you assert that the regulatory history and language of the standard point to this system being compliant under paragraph S5.5.1.

After careful consideration of both the standard and the arguments made in your letter, the agency has concluded that the EPB system described in your letter would be considered noncompliant with FMVSS No. 135 S5.5.1(c). As discussed above, FMVSS No. 135 S5.5.1(c) requires that if a vehicle ignition is switched to the “on” position and the parking brake is applied, an indicator must activate to inform the driver of the status of the parking brake. From the details in your letter, there would be scenarios where the vehicle you described would have the ignition switched to the “on” position with the parking brake applied, but the parking brake indicator would not be activated. To use the example from your letter, if a driver puts the vehicle in the park position and does not activate the parking brake manually, the parking brake will automatically apply, but no parking brake indicator will be active. The system you describe in
your letter would be considered noncompliant under FMVSS No. 135 S5.5.1(c). Simply put, if the parking brake is applied, the parking brake indicator must be activated.

Your letter asserts that the phrase “application of the parking brake” in paragraph S5.5.1(c) refers to an action that the driver takes via the “parking brake control.” You state that a driver cannot “apply” a parking brake system, but only the control, meaning that the parking brake indicator requirement only applies when the driver manually applies the parking brake. We disagree with this reading, which is inconsistent with both the language and the intent of the standard. Had S5.5.1(c) been intended to cover only manual application of the parking brake control, it would say so. Other parts of FMVSS No. 135 refer to application and activation of the “parking brake control”1; by contrast, S5.5.1(c) refers more generally to the “parking brake.” Moreover, FMVSS No. 135 makes multiple references to manual application, actions, or controls, without doing so in S5.5.1(c).2

As you state in your letter, when FMVSS No. 135 was first promulgated, manual application of the parking brake was the only way a parking brake could be engaged. However, FMVSS No. 135 has been updated multiple times since it was first issued in 1995, including as recently as 2022,3 and it has never been amended to specify that S5.5.1(c) applies only to manual application of the “parking brake control.” This history, and the lack of a manual application requirement or reference to the parking brake control in S5.5.1(c), show the agency intended the parking brake indicator to be active whenever the parking brake is engaged, regardless of how the brake is engaged.

Moreover, if S5.5.1(c) covered only manual application of the parking brake control, then no indicator would be required when a vehicle automatically engages the parking brake, even if nothing prevents the vehicle from driving during this engagement—a circumstance when an indicator would be especially essential because the driver may not have consciously activated the parking brake. In fact, your letter’s description of the manufacturer’s EPB system suggests there may be circumstances where the parking brake in the manufacturer’s vehicle is automatically engaged other than when the driver shifts the vehicle to “Park.”

The distinction your letter makes between a vehicle’s “parking brake” and its “parking brake system” does not change this analysis. “Parking brake system” has no regulatory definition.4 “Parking brake,” which is the term used in S5.5.1(c), is defined as “a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle.”5 The definition does not distinguish between mechanisms that are activated by a designated manual control and mechanisms that are activated by other means. S5.5.1(c) simply requires activation of the indicator when the parking brake mechanism is engaged.

The agency has also considered the arguments you made in your letter regarding previous interpretations NHTSA has published on the parking brake indicator requirement. NHTSA has indicated in interpretations that the purpose of the parking brake indicator requirement is to prevent drivers from driving their vehicles with the parking brake activated. Doing so could potentially lead to excessive wear on the transmission and parking brake system, which could cause a variety of safety issues.6 However, just because a manufacturer has designed a system that purports to resolve, though other means, a safety concern addressed in an FMVSS does not mean that it is not bound by the requirements of the FMVSS or that it may introduce noncompliant motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to the market. If a manufacturer believes that it has developed technology that makes certain regulatory requirements unnecessary, it may petition the agency for a rulemaking to amend the relevant requirements. It may also request an exemption from an applicable standard if it has reason to believe it is eligible.7 Otherwise, the current requirements apply.

Accordingly, the plain meaning and intent of S5.5.1(c) is for the parking brake indicator to be active any time the parking brake is engaged and the vehicle’s ignition is in the “on” position. This requirement applies regardless of whether the parking brake is engaged through the manual application of the designated parking brake control or through other means.

I hope this letter answers all of your questions. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew Filpi of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel
 

Dated: 10/31/24
Ref: Standard No. 135

1 See FMVSS 135 S.7.12.2(b), (i), (l).
2 See FMVSS 135 S5.3.2, S6.3.5, S6.3.11.2.
3 See 87 FR 34810 (Jun. 8, 2022).
4 The only published definition your letter provides for “parking brake system” is a proposed definition, never implemented, in FMVSS No. 121, which is a separate standard for air brake systems in trucks, buses, and trailers. Your letter also argues that “[t]he driver cannot ‘apply’ the parking brake system, only the control (e.g., using a lever or button).” In fact, FMVSS No. 135 indicates otherwise: it discusses how to test the parking brake “[i]n the case of a parking brake system that does not allow application of the specified force in a single application.” S7.12.2(j).
5 49 C.F.R. § 3(b).
6 See Letter to Headley, May 30, 2002, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/23871jeg#:~:text=We%20noted%20that%20the%20purpose%20of%20the,wa s%20applied%20(and%20hence%20should%20be%20released; see also Letter to Selander, Apr. 29, 2002, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/6992.
7 See, e.g., 49 C.F.R. § 556.

ID: aiam3484

Dear Mr. Wachsmuth: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation o paragraph S4.4(b)(3) of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, as it applies to a continuous-loop, Type 2 seat belt assembly. You ask whether each structural component of such a seat belt assembly should be considered 'common' hardware for both the pelvic and upper torso portions of the assembly.; Paragraph S4.4(b)(3) of Standard No. 209 specifies that the structura components in a Type 2 seat belt assembly that are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints shall withstand a force of not less than 3,000 pounds. Arguably, in a continuous-loop system with a sliding buckle latchplate, every since, as your letter points out, if one of the components should fail, the entire assembly could be rendered useless. However, the agency has stated in the past that testing for compliance with paragraph S4.4 of the standard on continuous- loop, Type 2 assemblies will be conducted by using a webbing clamp to segregate the portion of the assembly not being tested, i.e., to separate the pelvic and upper torso portions. This means that in continuous-loop assembly without the use of webbing clamps, the agency determined that such a test method is extremely difficult to perform. I am enclosing copies of two earlier letters of interpretation on this subject.; In light of this prior interpretation, the agency cannot conclude tha all components of a continuous-loop system are 'common' hardware for purposes of S4.4(b)(3). Rather, it is our opinion that only the latchplate, buckle and the inboard seat belt anchorage are common hardware for purposes of S4.4(b)(3). The belt retractor and the 'D' ring should be considered only part of the upper torso portion of the continuous-loop system.; I would point out that it is up to the vehicle manufacturer t determine and certify compliance with all applicable safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The agency does not provide prior approval of any safety design or test method. Therefore, you are free to test seat belt assemblies by any method you believe to be sufficient to establish due care that the assemblies are in compliance with Safety Standard No. 209. In our opinion, however, the test method mentioned in your letter would maintain a somewhat higher standard of performance than that currently required by the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0279

Dear Mr. Kosaka: This is in response to your letter of July 23, 1971, in which you aske a question concerning the requirement in Standard No. 208 that the seat belt warning signals deactivate when the parking brake is applied.; Your question was whether the standard's requirement would be satisfie by a system in which the seat belt warning signals deactivate at the same point at which the parking brake warning light goes on, considering the fact that the warning light is generally set to go on at a point where the parking brake lever is partially extended but before the brake is actually engaged.; We would consider the standard's requirement to be satisfied by th system you describe. We agree that the presence of the parking brake warning light is a sufficient deterrent to driving the vehicle with the parking brake partially engaged.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2420

Dear Commissioner Craig: Thank you for your August 12 and September 28, 1976, letters to ou Office of Standards Enforcement concerning possible noncompliance of certain air- braked school buses with Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. At issue is the functioning of a 'double check valve' between the two tanks of an air brake system designed to meet S5.7.2 of the standard (as it was in effect prior to September 1, 1976). The valve serves to provide air pressure from either supply reservoir to hold off the spring brakes while guarding the air brake system from air loss through either one of the reservoirs. The identified problem stems from construction or installation of the valve such that it does not necessarily operate to seal off the brake system from a loss of air in one of the tanks, permitting loss of air from both reservoirs unless the rate of air loss is substantial. Your letter advises that the State of California is permitting the continued operation of the school buses in question pending receipt of a response from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; I would like to address the findings you raise in the order in whic they are listed on page two of your letter. I interpret your first finding to be that the 'split system' designs used in compliance with Standard No. 121 may be incapable of meeting the stopping distance requirements set forth in S5.7.2. You question whether S5.7.2 adequately specifies a 'back up' braking capability that is not cancelled out by a single failure of air pressure components, citing cases where a substantial rate of loss from one tank (introduced as a failure in accordance with S5.7.2.3) draws down the air pressure in both halves of a split system.; The general requirement of S5.7.2.3 (of the now superseded text) i that the vehicle, in one out of six attempts under specified conditions, must be capable of stopping from 60 mph within a distance of 613 feet 'with a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid. . . .' To provide this performance (and meet the other requirements of S5.7.2) manufacturers have provided 'split systems' modulated by the service brake control. As a matter of general compliance with this requirement, you have asked if any single failure (other than failure of common components) can be introduced into the system as a test of its compliance. The answer to your question is yes. The NHTSA does not know the basis of Ford Motor Company's contention that the 'failure' introduced in the system must be at least 50 psi/min from an initial reservoir pressure of 120 psi.; A noncompliance with S5.7.2.3 occurs only if the vehicle, with th failure introduced, is incapable of stopping within the prescribed distance in one out of six attempts. Thus, an extremely small failure which is easily overcome by compressor pressure would be one way of testing for compliance with S5.7.2.3, but it would not, in all likelihood, result in the demonstration of a noncompliance. As you noted in the second paragraph of page 3 of your letter, a noncompliance with stopping distance requirements may depend (largely because of a compressor's ability to overcome air loss) on the rate of leakage introduced and the time allowed between introduction of the failure and application of the emergency brake. The standard does not (except for the provision of S6.1.14 for towing vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1976) provide detailed specification of procedures, particularly the time between failure and brake application. The agency therefore must utilize a reasonable procedure that does not unfairly test the system. In this case, the agency considers the introduction of any size leak, followed by brake application as soon as the low pressure warning activates, to be a reasonable procedure, approximating what would occur in the event of actual failure on the highway. The agency would find a noncompliance with S5.7.2.3 if the school buses are incapable of stopping within the required distance when the described procedure is followed.; Your second finding is that a particular double check valv installation can cause noncompliance with S5.7.2.3. Consistent with our general discussion of compliance with S5.7.2.3, stopping tests are the means to discover whether the buses in question comply. We are analyzing your data, and a noncompliance investigation has been opened. We have notified Ford Motor Company of its commencement. We have also forwarded data to our Office of Defects Investigation to see if the check valve problem constitutes a safety-related defect apart from the issue of compliance.; Your last three findings address the separate question of whether th concept of a split system is adequately interfaced with the parking brake requirements of Standard No. 121. First you make the general point that, if S5.7.2.3 permits a substantial loss of air from both sides of a split system, the benefit of redundant lines is negated and the split system requirement is unjustified. The agency understands your position and believes that a stricter control on the amount of permissible leakage (perhaps by means of a limitation on compressor replenishment or a longer period before emergency brake application) may be justified. Particularly important is your point that a compressor loses capability as it grows older, and that this is not accounted for in new-vehicle tests. At the same time, however, larger failures do occur and we continue to view the split system as extremely important for these cases. The split system provides extremely good protection against failures such as rupture of a line or brake chamber diaphragm.; With regard to your point that split systems do not guard agains failure of components common to the two systems as they are presently constructed (such as the compressor drive belt), I must agree with your point that no brake system can guard against every conceivable failure completely. It is for these cases, in fact, that the agency considers the automatic application of the parking brake system beneficial following loss of the other two capabilities.; You make the further point that, in cases of marginal compliance (i.e. the compressor can replace most but not all air loss from both sides of the split system), the gradual loss of system pressure permits parking brake application that interferes with modulation of the emergency capability. While S5.7.2 was designated as '*Modulated emergency braking system*', no specification for modulation was set forth in its requirements. The agency intended that a system conforming to S5.7.2 would be controlled by the driver instead of by automatic application. Our review of the systems you tested indicates that they are 'modulated systems' as contemplated by the agency.; The present emergency brake requirements only state that the system 'b applied and released, and be capable of modulation, by means of the service brake control.' While further specification of this requirement may be in order, I believe it is the early application of the parking brake that actually concerns you, as it affects the application and release of the emergency braking capability.; You make the observation that early application of the spring brakes i response to air pressure loss permits them to drag, become overheated, and fade, making them useless before they can be utilized. A related issue is that the spring brakes will apply shortly after emergency brake availability (even before activation of the low air pressure warning), immobilizing the vehicle with no capability to release the parking brakes. You suggest implementation of a parking brake arrangement that would keep the spring brakes off longer or provide an isolated source of air pressure to permit their release when they do lock up.; Analysis of your test reports leads me to agree that some specificatio to limit the early application of spring brakes would be in order. Of course, as you are well aware, notice to interested persons of any change in the standard is required, along with an opportunity for comment. I believe that such rulemaking could be joined with the earlier rulemaking undertaken in response to a California Highway Patrol (CHP) petition (Docket 75-16, Notice 04).; Your final point is that, as long as early application of the parkin brake is permissible, an isolated tank of air should be available to permit release of the parking brake from the driver's position. With regard to an isolated tank, the NHTSA continues to maintain its view set forth in our November 29, 1974, letter to Donald Gibson of the CHP that the second side of the split system provides more capability than the old systems (with an isolated tank) to avoid a lockup following a service brake failure. However, you have clearly demonstrated that the capability can be essentially negated by early application of the parking brake. I believe that limitations on early application of the parking brake would be a superior correction to the problem than the addition of more components (and complexity) to the existing systems.; Because school buses are involved in the problems you cite, you are n doubt aware that S 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while preemptive of State regulations or laws of general applicability that are not identical to Federal standards on the same aspect of performance, does not prevent a State or political subdivision from specifying a higher level of brake performance in vehicles 'procured for its own use.' Thus, the State of California may wish to order school buses with the additional isolated reservoir that you have recommended. The addition of a third tank to a system that complies with the standard's requirements would not be prevented by S 103(d).; I appreciate the constructive approach being pursued by the State o California in enforcement of Standard No. 121. Our Office of Standards Enforcement will keep you advised of the results of its investigation.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 1984-2.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transport Canada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. G.N. Farr, P. Eng. Transport Canada Standards and Regulations Division, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 CANADA

Dear Mr. Farr:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR S571.222). First, I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. You specifically asked for an interpretation of section S5.1.3.4 of Standard No. 222, which section requires the seat back to absorb 4,000W inch-pounds of energy. This energy is applied to the seat by a loading bar moving forward. When calculating the energy absorbed by the seat, the force transmitted back through the loading bar after the forward pressure is released is subtracted from the energy which was transmitted through the loading bar when it was moving forward. You asked at what point the forward movement of the loading bar is stopped in order to permit the seat back to rebound with a resultant energy absorption by the seat back of 4,000W inch-pounds. You noted that the rebound characteristics of the seat being tested would have to be known in advance to calculate the point at which the forward movement of the loading bar should be stopped.

This point was explained in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking which preceded the adoption of Standard No. 222 (40 FR 17855; April 23, 1975) (copy enclosed). An earlier proposal had specified a requirement that, "The energy necessary to deflect the seat back 14 inches shall be not less than 4,000W inch-pounds". This agency decided that this language created needless confusion, by inaccurately combining two different requirements. Accordingly, the requirements were set forth in two separate sections. Section S5.1.3(b) now specifies that seat back deflection shall not exceed 14 inches. This requirement is related to the requirement in section S5.1.3.4 that the seat back absorb 4,000W inch-pounds.

When conducting the compliance testing for section S5.1.3.4, the agency deflects the seat back as far as it will go, and then releases the seat back. If the seat back absorbs 4,000W inch-pounds of energy or more when tested according to the procedures set forth in S5.1.3.4, it is deemed to pass the test. If the seat back does not absorb 4,000W inch-pounds during the test, the seat back has failed the test. I think your question arose from your impression that the testing must be continued until the seat back has absorbed exactly 4,000W inch-pounds of energy. This agency tests only to see if the seat back absorbs 4,000W inch-pounds or more.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5, January 9, 1984.

Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, U.S.A.

Dear Sir:

On November 22, 1983 we wrote to request a copy of any legal interpretations which have been made to clause S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222. A copy of the letter is attached.

We would appreciate it if you could review this item and respond at your earliest convenience.

Yours very truly,

G.N. Farr, P. Eng., Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation.

Attach.

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5, November 22, 1983.

Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, U.S.A.

Dear Sir:

This is a request to be provided with a copy of any legal interpretation which has been made to clause S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222. The interpretation would involve the method used to determine the amount of energy absorbed in deflecting the seat back (or retaining barrier). S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222 requires that an additional force be applied until 4000W inch-pounds of energy has been absorbed by the seat back. The force-deflection curve used to calculate the energy consists of both the forward and rearward travel of the loading bar pivot point. The question regarding clarification is, at what point do you stop the forward movement of the loading bar, in order to permit the seat back to rebound, with a resultant energy absorption of 4000 W inch-pounds? The rebound characteristics of the seat back would have to be known in advance in order to determine this point.

If a legal interpretation of this point has been made in the past, we would appreciate receiving a copy of same.

Yours very truly,

G.N. Farr P. Eng., Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulations

ID: aiam4576

"Dear Mr. Brady: This responds to your letter asking whether certai seats in a limousine would be considered 'designated seating positions' within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR /571.3. You stated that the seats in question are two free-standing, rearward facing passenger seats installed in the rear passenger compartment of a limousine. According to your letter, these seats are mounted to the floor and do not fold into the back of another seat, nor are these seats labeled to indicate that they are not designated for occupancy while the limousine is in motion. In a February 24, 1989 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that the vehicles in which these seats are installed have not previously been sold for purposes other than resale. If the situation is as described in your letter, these seats would be considered 'designated seating positions' within the meaning of 49 CFR /571.3. Title 49 CFR /571.3 defines a 'designated seating position' as follows: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. The seats described in your letter appear to be capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female. Further, the overall seat configuration and design and the limousine's design is such that these seats appear likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. Finally, the seats do not appear to be auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. For a more complete explanation of what type of seats the agency considers to be 'auxiliary seating accommodations,' I have enclosed an April 28, 1971 letter from this agency to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota. Based on these conclusions, this agency would consider each of the two rear facing seats to be 'designated seating positions.' If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3690

Dear Mr. Petler: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concernin the requirements for seat belt anchorages in passenger cars under Safety Standard No. 210. Specifically, you ask whether only Type 1 seat belt anchorages are required in rear seating positions in passenger cars.; The answer to your question is no. Under paragraph S4.1.1 of standar 210, Type 2 seat belt anchorages (for combination lap and shoulder belts) are required as follows: at each front and rear forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles, and at each front forward-facing outboard designated seating position in vehicles other than passenger cars where Type 2 belts are required by Safety Standard No. 208. All other seating positions in both passenger cars and other vehicles may be equipped with anchorages for either Type 2 belts or Type 1 belts (lap belts). Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, requires Type 2 belts only in *front* outboard designated seating positions in passenger cars, but passenger cars still must be equipped with anchorages for Type 2 belts in rear outboard designated seating positions.; As to your reference to discussion of anchorages in the agency' November 2, 1981 denial notice to Toyo Kogyo (46 FR 54391), that discussion was misleading because it did not provide complete information or distinguish adequately between passenger cars and other types of vehicles. The agency intended to refer to the type of belts required by Safety Standard No. 208, i.e., Type 2 belts in front outboard designated seating positions and Type 1 belts in front center and all rear seating positions.; I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding you may have ha concerning the anchorage requirements. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426- 2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2964

Dear Mr. Cordner:#I regret the delay in responding to your letter o October 17, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls, (sic) and Displays*. You asked whether placing the turn signal symbol on the turn signal switch handle so that the arrows are vertical would comply with the standard.#The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear preceptually (sic) upright to the driver. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure quick and accurate identification of the vehicle controls. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2962

Dear Mr. Cordner:#I regret the delay in responding to your letter o October 17, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls, (sic) and Displays*. You asked whether placing the turn signal symbol on the turn signal switch handle so that the arrows are vertical would comply with the standard.#The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear preceptually (sic) upright to the driver. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure quick and accurate identification of the vehicle controls. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;