ID: nht87-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc.

TEXT: Dear

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation as to whether a new mini-van you will introduce into the United States would be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581). In a June 5, 1987, phone conversation between members of my staff and your staff, it has stated that this interpretation should not address the question of how this vehicle would be classified for purposes of the avera ge fuel economy standards. You stated in your letter your opinion that this new mini-van should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis.

Your opinion was based on the fact that both passenger and cargo versions of this mini-van have already been sold in Japan. You stated that the cargo version of the mini-van has a chassis that is substantially reinforced from the chassis used in the pass enger version of this mini-van. The version of the vehicle you will offer for sale in the United States will be a passenger version of the vehicle, but will use the chassis offered on the Japanese cargo version of this vehicle. Apparently, you do not pla n to offer any cargo versions of this vehicle for sale in the United States. However, you believe that the chassis that will be offered on the United States version of this mini-van is a truck chassis, and this should not result in the United States vers ion this vehicle being classified as a multipurpose vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the bumper standard.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that both the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S. C. 1915(c)), with respect to the bumper standard, place the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. This agency may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify a vehicle for the purpose s of these standards. It is important for the manufacturer to be aware that these tentative statements are based entirely on the information provided to the agency by the manufacturer, and the tentative conclusions may change after the agency has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself.

A December 1, 1983, letter to Mr. Nakaya discusses how we would consider and apply the various factors to determine whether a vehicle should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of being constructed on a truck chassis. A copy of th at letter is enclosed for your information. Our position has not changed since this 1983 letter.

To briefly summarize the letter, the fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one of which is classified as a truck, is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the ch assis has truck attributes. This further evidence might consist of information showing the chassis designed to be more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis, which you stated is the case for the chassis on this new vehicle. The 1983 letter makes clear that NHTSA will examine the classification of your new vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle more carefully than other such classifications, since no truck version of this vehicle will be offered for s ale in the United States. However, at that time and assuming that your statements about the reinforcement of the chassis are accurately it appears to us that this vehicle is constructed on a truck chassis. Accordingly, the vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the bumper and safety standards. The version of this letter that has been placed in our public docket, together with your letter to me, have all information identifying you and your company deleted therefrom. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

(see 12/1/83 NHTSA letter to Mazda, Inc.)

12/22/86

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation of Part 571.3 Definitions; "Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV)" and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act Pub.L. 92-513 USC 1901-1991.

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) plans to introduce a Colt/Mirage Station Wagon in the 1988 model year. We request that NHTSA treat our letter as confidential since the disclosure of our future product plans could cause serious competitive harm. MMC b elieves this wagon should be classified as a MPV for the following reasons:

The Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is a small wagon which will be identical to the Mirage Van sold in the Japanese market in the following respects:

The Mirage Van is a commercial vehicle and has a truck chassis as follows:

(1) The chassis of the Mirage Van is reinforced from that of the Mirage Sedan for commerical use in the Japanese market.

The components reinforced include the following: - The rear suspension is changed from independent to rigid.

- The rear floow pan and longitudinal members are changed and strengthened for commercial load support.

(2) As the result of such reinforcement, the gross vehicle weight of the Mirage Van in the Japanese market increases 300kg as follows:

Mirage Van 1525kg

Mirage Sedan 1225kkg

(5) the Mirage Van has other commercial features as follows:

- The flat cargo floor extends from the folded rear seat back to the tailgate.

- The end of the cargo floor has no stepped up crossrail. This makes loading and unloading of cargo convenient.

- The roof is raised 40mm from the sedan for cargo capacity.

Since the chassis of Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is the same as that of the Mirage Van, we believe the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon has a truck chassis and can be considered a MPV.

Please inform us in a timely manner whether our interpreatation is correct.

If you have any question, please contact me or Hiroshi Kato at (313) 353-5444.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Richard Logan -- President, Logan Conversions, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 3, 1987, letter asking for information on installing a left side passenger door on new and used school buses. You stated that the door you wish to install would be added to the vehicle as an extra exit and you do not intend to seal or otherwise make inoperable any existing door. Installing an extra exit on a school bus is permitted by our regulations, provided that the work performed complies with our requirements for vehicle modifications. The applicable requirements for su ch modifications depend on the nature of the work performed and when it was done.

Before I begin to explain our requirements, let me clarify that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have a process by which businesses such as yours apply to and are approved by the agency. Instead, under the National Tra ffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations, you are responsible for determining whether your vehicle modifications conform to Federal law and making the requisite certification in accordance with that determination. This "self-certification " process requires you to determine in the exercise of due care that you have met all applicable requirements.

If you install the door on a new school bus, you are considered an "alterer" of a previously certified motor vehicle. Under our requirements for alterers, set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.7 of our regulations (copy enclosed), you must certify that the vehic le, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Among the standards applicable to the bus are our school bus safety standards, and these include Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

In the case of Standard No. 217, which sets emergency exit requirements, it is important whether the additional exit in question is intended to be used as an emergency exit. While we do not prohibit the installation of additional exits in school buses, this agency has long held the position that extra "emergency exits" in school buses should comply with the

2

requirements set forth in 217 for non-school bus emergency exits. If the door is not labeled or intended as an emergency exit, then Standard No. 217's requirements are not applicable.

Modifications of new or used vehicles by commercial businesses are also governed by @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed). This section requires Logan Conversions to ensure that the modifications it performs do not render inoperative the compliance of vehicles with Federel motor vehicle safety standards. For example, when installing the extra door, your business could not alter the seats in the school bus in a manner that would take the bus out of complian ce with Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Violations of @ 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civi penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to copies of the above-mentioned documents, I have also enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations for your future reference. Please contact my office if you have further quest ions.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ATTACH.

June 3, 1987

Erika Jones -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, CHIEF COUNSELS OFFICE

Dear Ms. Jones,

We are a major school bus company that is based in New York City and its suburbs, and operate approximately 300 vehicles.

As part of our contractual obligation to the City of New York we are required to have part of our fleet equipped with left side passenger doors, as well as the standard right side door.

We currently own and contemplate purchasing additional school buses that do not meet left side door at this time.

We are seeking the proper authorization to perform the left side door conversions in our shops, utilizing our mechanical staff. It is for this reason that I forward this information to your office for review and a response on what steps must be taken by our corporation to perform these conversions meeting all New York State and National Highway Administration requirements.

To begin with, as you are aware, we as a New York State bus contractor are govern by the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation. In accordance with the observance of New York State D.O.T. requirements, I have brought our conversion re quest to the attention of Mr. Robert Bailey whom is the chief motor vehicle inspector for our region. It was Mr. Bailey that suggested that I forward this request to yourself, pertaining to the specific listed below.

(1) All necessary information and applications to perform the above conversions on our own vehicles as well as vehicles owned by others.

(2) All necessary information for conversions on new and used buses.

(3) All Federal requirements for the above conversions.

Enclosed is a letter from Carpenter Body Works which indicates their interest in authorizing us to do left door conversions.

Thanking you in advance for prompt attention to our request.

Very tryly yours,

Richard Logan -- President, LOGAN CONVERSIONS LTD.

cc: Robert Bailey Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector, NYC State of New York Department of Transportation

CARPENTER BODY WORKS, INC.

November 18, 1986

Logan Bus Co., Inc.

ATTN: RICHARD LOGAN

Dear Mr. Logan:

We are enclosing all of the necessary prints for the conversion of 1977 through present buses that require the left side entrance door. Parts and prices can be obtained through your local Carpenter Dealer. If we can be assured that this conversion w ill be done complete as shown on the enclosed prints, Carpenter will authorize this body design conversion.

Sincerely,

Keith Eckensberger Senior Product Engineer

ID: nht87-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Philip T. Kelly

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Philip T. Kelly Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Rock Hill School District Number Three P.O. Drawer 10072 522 East Main Street Rock Hill, S.C. 29731 Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking two questions about the applicability of our school bus safety standards to vans. I apologize for the delay in our response.

Before I begin to answer your specific questions, it might be helpful to provide some background information on our school bus regulation. 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 manufacturer and sale of new motor vehicles and includes the motor vehicles safety standards for school buses we believe that those motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. We the "school bu s regulations" to which you refer in your letter.

In general, the parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. The act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically a pplicable to "school buses". Further, under the vehicles safety act, each person selling a new bus to a school must ensure that the bus complies with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses or be potentially subject to fines under federal law . Because the Vehicle Safety Act applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and not to vehicle use, there is no federal prohibition directed against a school or school district that uses noncomplying buses to carry school children.

NHTSA issued the second set of -regulations- for school buses under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. Those regulations, or highway Safety program standards, are recommendations from this agency to the states for developing their highway safety pr ograms. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), includes recommendation; for the operational aspects of state pupil transportation programs, such as school bus identification maintenance and driver training. I ndividual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. A state that has adopted this standard might have specifications applying to small "vans" used as school vehicles. Because the issue is one concerning state law, South Carolina officials would be able to provide you with more information on state requirements for the operation of smaller school vehicles.

With this background, I will now address your specific questions. Your first question asked whether a vehicle carrying 11 or fewer persons (driver included) must conform to federal school bus requirements. Our regulation; issued under the Vehicle Safety Act specify that a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered a "bus," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. If a new vehicle is designed for carrying 10 or fewer person s, it is considered under our regulations to be either a "passenger car" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV). We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require them to comply with Federal school bus safety standard;. Instead, they must meet safety standards applicable to MPV's.

Your second question was "Can a van designed for 14 passengers be redesigned for 10 passengers and not be required to meet Federal school bus requirements?" Before I explain the consequences under Federal law of removing seats from a 14-passenger bus, I would like to reiterate that our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of school buses or to restrict the seating in your 14-passenger vans to take them out of our "school bus" category. By so reducing the passenger capacity, the vehicle's classification would be changed from a bus to a, MPV. Accordingly, the alterer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the federal safety standards applicable to MPV's. Among other things, this would require the a lterer to install safety belts at all seating positions. If the modifications were made after the vehicle's first purchase, our regulations on vehicle alteration would no longer apply.

However, modifications to used vehicles are subject to a statutory restriction. Specifically, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering ino perative equipment or designs that are incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that a commercial modifier in any of the above categories may remove seats in your vehicle, but must ensure that t he vehicle continues to comply with all applicable federal safety standards after the seats have been removed. The Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for any person who violates section 108(a)(2)(A).

Neither the prohibition against rendering inoperative in @10B (a)( 2) (A) of the Safety Act nor our regulations issued under the Safety Act applies to an owner modifying his or her own vehicle. Therefore, if your school district chooses to reduce the pas senger capacity of your vehicles, you may perform the work on your own vehicles without regard to any Federal regulations administered by this agency. Again, however, you should ensure that the modification is done in conformance with any applicable Sout h Carolina laws.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 1, 1986 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs;

We would like to request some interpretation of the standards for school bus safety as they relate to vans.

1. If a vehicle carries no more than 10, passengers, must it conform to the Federal school bus requirements?

2. Can a van designed for 14 passengers be re-designed for 10 passengers and not be required to meet Federal school bus requirements?

Your attention to this request is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Philip T. Kelly Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services

ID: nht87-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Autery -- President, Auto Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Autery President Auto Accessories, Inc. P.O. Box 10044 New Iberia, LA 70561

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, concerning the installation of your company's armrest in certain Volvo models. Specifically, you propose to have dealers remove the part of the front seat belt assembly that contains the buckle for the belt, straighten a metal guide that ensures that the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly will remain accessible to passengers, and discard a spacer washer that is provided with the seat belt assembly. The sp acer washer would be replaced by the armrest mounting bracket, which you stated is the same thickness as the spacer washer it would replace. You asked us whether this procedure would be permissible under the law and our regulations. As explained below, a ny dealers that follow your proposed installation procedures might violate Federal law.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) sets forth minimum requirements for occupant protection. Additionally, section S7.2 sets forth an accessibility requirement for safety belt latch mechanisms that reads as follows:

S7.2 Latch mechanism. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenger car, except an automatic belt assembly, shall have a latch mechanism (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions; ...

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides 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 ..." This statutory prohibition might be violated by any dealer that followed your proposed installation proce dures for your armrest.

For example, it may be that Volvo installed the metal guide on its front seat safety belts for the purpose of complying with section S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If this were the case, any dealer that straightened that metal guide, in accordance with your i nstallation instructions, might render inoperative a device (that metal guide) that was installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 208. In this situation, whether the dealer actually renders inoperative the metal guides by straightening the m depends on whether the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly no longer complies with section S7.2 (which requires the buckle to be accessible to the front seat occupant) after the installation.

Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a)12)(A), up to a maximum of $800,000 for a related series of violations. We would consider each installation of your armrest by a dealer that render s inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 to be a separate violation. Accordingly, a dealer might be liable for a civil penalty of $1000 multiplied by the number of vehicles in which the dealer had installed armrests in accordance with your instructions.

Please do not misconstrue this letter as suggesting that this agency either approves or disapproves the proposed installation instructions for your armrests. The Safety Act does not give NHTSA any authority to approve or endorse any products. Instead, th e Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether your proposed installation instructions violate a legal or regulatory requirement on your company. The agency may reexamine your initial determination in the context of an enforcement action.

To comply with your legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully reexamine the proposed installation instructions and compare those instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 208, to determine if installing your armrests in accordance with you r installation instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 208. If it would do so, you will have to devise some other means of installing your armrests, so that dealers would not be instructed to render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. If your proposed installation instructions do not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208, dealers can follow those instructions without violating any provisions of t he law.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ATTN: JOHN MESSERA REG: CENTER ARMREST INSTALLATION ON VOLVO 240 SEDAN.

I WOULD LIKE AN INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH ASSEMBLY WHICH IS NECESSARY TO INSTALL OUR ARMREST. OUR A/R IS A AFTERMARKET ACCESSORY WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR 6 YEARS NOW. THE A/R WAS DESIGNED TO INSTALL I NTO PRE-EXISTING HOLES ON THE TUNNEL OF THE CAR. AT THE TIME OF DESIGN AND UP UNTIL THIS YEAR THE HOLES WERE LEFT BLANK ON THE AMERICAN MODELS BUT USED IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRY'S. THE VOLVO CAR CORP. OF SWEDEN HAS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SEAT BELT LATCHES AVAILABLE. STARTING IN MID 87 VOLVO AMERICA SWITCHED SAME DESIGN USED IN EUROPE WHICH INSTALLS INTO THE HOLES OUR ARMREST WAS DESIGNED TO GO IN.

OUR ARMREST CAN STILL BE INSTALLED INTO THE HOLES IF YOU REMOVE A LARGE WASHER FROM THE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY AND REPLACE THE WASHER WITH OUR ARMREST MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS .

THE LARGE WASHER THAT WOULD BE REMOVED IS A SPACER THAT IS USED TO SHOULDER UP THE BOLT TO THE FLOOR OF THE TUNNEL WHICH IS BELOW THE SAME THICKNESS OF CARPET.

THE ACTUAL SEAT BELT LATCH PIVOTS ON THE BOLT WHICH HOLDS IT IN PLACE. SO AS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE FROM SAMPLES I'VE SENT AND FROM THE ILLUSTRATIONS, THAT EXCHANGING THE WASHER, FOR THE A/R MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS, WON'T AFFECT TH E PERFORMANCE OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH.

I'VE ENCLOSED THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR YOU TO REVIEW. THE PROCEDURE WILL BE DONE BY QUALIFIED MECHANICS AT THE INDIVIDUAL DEALERSHIPS AROUND THE COUNTRY.

WE DO A LOT OF BUSINESS WITH SEVERAL VOLVO DEALERS IN YOUR AREA, AND COULD EASILY ARRANGE FOR A DEMO OF THE INSTALLATION IF THIS WOULD BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE.

WE 15 EMPLOYEES AT AUTO ACCESSORIES WILL BE EAGERLY AWAITING YOUR INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE.

SINCERELY YOURS PAUL AUTERY PRESIDENT AUTO ACCESSORIES, INC.

ID: 86-5.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Herbert Epstein -- Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Fort Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of a portion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) response to the petitions for reconsideration of the final rule establishing the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (51 FR 8831, at 8835, March 14, 1986).

Specifically, you were concerned about the following language:

A manufacturer is free under this standard and the Theft Act to use a transparent paint mask and to specify in its contracts with its dealers that the dealer must remove the mask before selling vehicles or parts. However, if the dealer does not remove the mask, both the manufacturer and the dealer could be liable for violating section 607(a) of the Cost Saving Act. The manufacturer and dealer might both be liable for selling a vehicle not in compliance with the theft prevention standard (prohibited by section 607(a)(1)) and the manufacturer might be liable for falsely certifying that the vehicle complies with the theft prevention standard (prohibited by section 607(a)(4)(B)). The manufacturer must assume its portion of this risk if it wishes to use a transparent integral paint mask that must be removed by its dealers.

You stated in your letter that this discussion could be read as imposing vicarious liability on the manufacturers for a dealer's failure to remove a paint mask after the dealer had painted over the mask. You then asked whether NHTSA's opinion would be affected if the manufacturer provided the dealer in writing, either by letter or service bulletin, instructions on how to protect the labels during dealer preparation and advice that Federal law required dealers to remove the paint mask after performing the dealer preparation operations. Such a step would affect the agency's opinion as to the manufacturer's liability for the non-removal of a paint mask, as explained below.

The language you quoted from the preamble was intended to alert vehicle and parts manufacturers to their statutory obligations under section 607(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2027(a)). When dealers must take further actions to bring a vehicle into compliance with the theft prevention standard, section 607 of the Cost Savings Act requires the vehicle manufacturer to exercise due care to ensure that the dealers will, in fact, perform such further actions. See sections 607(a)(4)(B) and 607(b) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2027(a) (4)(B) and 2027(b)). The language quoted above from the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration implicitly acknowledged this due care defense by stating that manufacturers "could" and "might" be liable for violations of section 607(a) if paint masks were not removed by dealers.

It is not possible for us to give a hard and fast rule of what constitutes due care in all circumstances. For example, a manufacturer that learns that its dealers generally are not removing the paint masks must do more to establish that it exercised due care than it did before it learned of such failures by its dealers. As a general proposition, however, NHTSA believes that a manufacturer using transparent paint masks to protect its labels has exercised due care, and therefore is not liable for violations of section 607(a), when it takes the following steps:

1. The manufacturer includes a provision in its contracts with each of its dealers obligating the dealer to remove the transparent paint masks;

2. The manufacturer issues a service bulletin to all of its dealers providing instructions on how to protect the label during painting, rustproofing, etc., and on how and when to remove the transparent paint masks; and

3. The manufacturer reminds the dealers, either in the service bulletin or in a separate letter, of their contractual and statutory obligations to remove transparent paint masks after performing dealer preparation operations, if the label is then obscured by the paint mask.

Absent unusual circumstances, NHTSA would conclude that a manufacturer has exercised due care for the purposes of section 607 of the Cost Savings Act if the manufacturer has taken these three steps.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 16, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esquire -- Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

Request for Interpretation

The agency stated, * in commenting on 49 CFR @ 541.5(d)(1)(ii)(C), that a manufacturer of a vehicle or replacement part covered by the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard ("Standard") might be vicariously liable for a dealer's failure to remove a transparent paint mask from an identification label after the dealer painted over the mask even though the manufacturer's contract with the dealer required such removal. The comment did not, however, discuss the situation in which the manufacturer, in addition to entering into such a contract, also provided to the dealer a writing (for example, by a letter or a service bulletin) which

(1) provided instructions on how to protect the label during painting, rustproofing, undercoating or like operation;

(2) stated that, in NHTSA's opinion, federal law required the removal of the protective mask after such operation, if the mask then obscured the label; and (3) stated that violators might be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

* Docket No. T84-01; Notice 9, "Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard and Selection of Covered Major Parts; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration", 51 Fed. Reg. 8831, 8835 (1986).

In our view, any dealer who breached his contract in the face of such a writing would not be engaged in "normal" dealer preparation operations within the meaning of @ 541.5(d)(1)(ii)(C); to the contrary, the dealer's actions would be in derogation of his contractual obligations. Moreover, by contracting with the dealer and instructing him in the foregoing manner, the manufacturer would have exercised as high a degree of care to prevent the dealer's non-compliance as is reasonable to expect of it. Therefore, we assume you would agree that if a dealer failed in such circumstances to remove the mask he obscured, the manufacturer would have no reason to know in the exercise of due care that the dealer had put the regulated vehicle or replacement part out of compliance with the Standard (15 U.S.C. @ 2027(b)), and would not be liable for the dealer's failure.

We respectfully request your confirmation of our interpretation. Should you have any questions, please contact me. My telephone number is (313) 322-4397.

Respectfully yours,

Herbert Epstein -- Senior Attorney

cc: Stephen R. Kratzke, Esquire

ID: 86-5.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Douglas Applegate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Applegate:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure

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

Dear Ms. Steed:

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

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

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

Sincerely Yours,

DOUGLAS APPLEGATE Member of Congress

DA/wt Enclosure

October 10, 1986

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

Dear Congressman Applegate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

With best regards, I am,

Very truly yours,

Thomas P. Ash Superintendent of Schools

TPA:mle

cc: Charles R. Thomas, Jr.

ID: 86-6.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: HIROSHI MORIYOSHI -- EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/09/86, TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM HIROSHI MORIYOSHI RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVS 101 CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS AND FMVSS 102 TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER SEQUENCE STARTER INTERLOCK AND TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT; OCC - 0476

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moriyoshi:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, Controls and Displays, and No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the identification and visibility requirements of these standards for the gear position indicator of an automatic transmission. As part of a design you are considering producing, a gear position indicator, using light-emitting diodes (LED's), would be located within the instrument panel. Your letter states that this system would conform with all applicable requirements when the ignition switch is in the on and start position, but would not be visible when the ignition switch was in the accessory or off positions. Your letter states further that, in addition to this LED display, the steering-column-mounted gear shift selector would be provided with embossed position indicators conforming to Standard No. 102, except that the identifiers would only be visible from the inboard side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position. The issues raised by your letter with respect to whether the design you are considering would comply with Standards No. 101 and No. 102 are addressed below.

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

I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 that are relevant to your request. Section S3.2 of Standard No. 102 states that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." (Emphasis added.)

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.1 requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of section S6. Section S6 provides that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102.

I will now address these requirements in relation to the design you are considering. As discussed below, it is our opinion that your proposed design would not meet Standard No. 102's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions must be permanently displayed in view of the driver.

While your design would include two automatic gear position displays, neither display would provide identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions in view of the driver when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off position. As noted by your letter, NHTSA has interpreted the words "permanently displayed" to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. The display on the instrument panel would not be visible when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off positions. The other display, located on the steering column, would not be visible to the driver regardless of the position of the ignition switch.

NHTSA has previously addressed Standard No. 102's requirement that certain identification be "in view of the driver" in connection with a request for interpretation concerning the identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions. The agency concluded that the pattern "is deemed to be 'displayed in view of the driver' if part of it may be seen from the driver's normal eye position and a reasonable amount of movement of the driver allows him to gain full view of the pattern." (Letter to Daimler-Benz of North America, February 27, 1967)

As noted above, your letter states that the display on the steering column would "only be visible from the side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position." This suggests that little, if any, of the display may be seen from the driver's normal eye position

and that a significant amount of movement of the driver would be required to see the full display. This is further confirmed by a statement in your letter indicating that the driver would need to lean forward, utilizing the flexibility provided by an emergency locking retractor, in order to see the display, and then return to the normal driving position. (Emphasis added) It therefore appears that the display is not "in view of the driver."

While your letter suggests that the degree of visibility provided by the display might be appropriate for situations where the vehicle is not activated, Standard No. 102's requirement that the display be within the "view of the driver" does not distinguish between whether the engine is on or off. We also note that a driver used to viewing the gear position indicator on the instrument panel might not be aware that another display, which would not be visible from a normal driving position, even exists.

Since neither display would provide identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions in view of the driver when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off position, it is unnecessary to address the issue raised by your letter concerning whether multiple and complementary indicators can be used to meet the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 for gear position displays, where no single indicator meets the requirements.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: SPENCER A. DARBY -- STATE-LITE MFG. CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/19/88 FROM SPENCER A. DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 125; OCC-2166; TELECOPY DATED 08/30/88 FROM SPENCER A DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE 2166

TEXT: Dear Mr. Darby:

This is a response to your letter asking for an interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). I apoligize for the delay in this response. You were particularly interested in learning how Standard 125 affects the use of warning devi ces for vehicles that are 60 inches wide, and that travel in interstate commerce.

Before I answer your specific questions, I would like to present some background information about the authority of this agency which may help you better to understand my answers. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency authority to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. When a standard is established for items of motor vehicle equipment, such as Standard 125 is with respect to warning devices, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that "no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction, or import into the United States" any warning device manufactured after the effective date of Standard 125 that does not comply with Standard 125. Accordingly, Standard 125 regulates the manufacture, distribution, and sale of warning devices.

Note that Standard 125 does not regulate the use of warning devices, because the Safety Act does not give this agency any authority to regulate the operator or operation of any vehicle. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does have authority to re gulate some motor vehicle operators and operations. Thus, to the extent that you have any questions about possible Federal regulations regarding the use of warning devices, you should address those questions to the Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway A dministration, located in Room 4213, 400 7th Street, Washington DC 20590. I can only answer questions about how Standard 125 affects your company as a manufacturer of warning devices.

Your questions involve the correct interpretation of @5.1.5 of Standard 125, which reads as follows:

S5.1.5. Each warning device shall have instructions for its erection and display.

(a) The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed.

(b) Instructions for each warning device shall include a recommendation that the driver activate the vehicular hazard warning signal lamps before leaving the vehicle to erect the warning device.

(c) Instructions shall include the illustration depicted in Figure 3 indicating recommended positioning.

Figure 3, to which S5.1.5(c) refers, shows a disabled vehicle on the side of the road with the warning device positioned one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle.

Your first question was why Figure 3 in Standard 125 shows a vehicle with only one warning device behind the disabled vehicle, since the FHWA requires vehicles over 80 inches wide to carry three warning devices. The answer is that Standard 125 applies t o warning devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, not just those that are over 80 inches wide. Thus, the positioning shown for the warning device in Figure 3 is a recommendation for the proper positioning of a single warning device carried in any vehicle. I note that NHTSA originally proposed to require seven different Figures showing recommended positioning of warning devices for different vehicle types on various highway configurations. In the final rule establishing Standard 125, NHTSA decided that a single figure was sufficient to show the user how to position an erected warning device behind any vehicle type on any highway configuration. See 37 FR 5038, March 9, 1972.

As a part of your first question, you stated that your company includes figures showing how to position three warning devices for a disabled truck on a divided highway and on a non-divided highway in addition to Figure 3. You asked if these additional f igures are permitted by Standard 125. The answer to this question is yes. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to provide additional information, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the require d information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. In this case, we have no reason to believe that vehicle operators would be confused or misled by information about how to position three warning devices if they have them. Therefore, Standard 125 does not prohibit the inclusion of these additional figures in your instructions.

Your second question was whether you are required to attach the instructions to the warning device itself, on warning devices sold for use with vehicles under 80 inches wide. The answer to your question is yes. S5.1.5(a) explicitly states: "The instruc tions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed." This requirement applies to all warning devices, not just to those for use by vehicles more than 80 inches wide. Thus, if the instructions were located on the inside cover of the container, as suggested in your letter, the warning device would not comply with Standard 125.

Your third question was whether NHTSA should amend Standard 125 to include additional illustrative figures showing recommended positioning for warning devices used in vehicles over 80 inches wide. We do not believe there is any reason to do so. As note d above, NHTSA proposed adopting seven figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices, but determined in the final rule that the single figure provided sufficient information to show users how to position the warning device in relation to any disabled vehicle. As also noted above, manufacturers of warning devices are permitted to include additional illustrative figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices with particular vehicle types on particular highways.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-1.5

DATE: 02/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 3, 1976, letter pointing out an error in the publication of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, in Supplement 109 to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

While the Federal Register is, of course, the official source of the law, we share your concern for the accuracy of the supplements. The error in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 was discovered immediately upon its publication and steps were taken to correct it. We expect the correction to appear in the supplement to be mailed on February 25, 1976.

YOURS TRULY,

Ford Motor Company

February 3, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" - Supplement 109, dated December 3, 1975

In the subject publication, the technical reproduction of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101, "Control Location, Identification and Illumination, Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses" is in error. Columns 3 and 4 of Table I are incorrect, and page 3 was revised without a change in the revision date.

Attachments I through IV show Table I:

* as it appears in the December 3 supplement,

* before the latest amendment,

* amendments published in Docket 1-18; Notice 11 (40 FR 31770-71) July 29, 1975,

* as it should appear.

We appreciate the fact that the Federal Register is the official source for information related to amendments to the rules. Howeve, the value of the supplement lies in the fact that the revisions and pagination provide for a complete and up-to-date reference that is of continued use. Mistakes in this document may lead to unnecessary confusion.

Because of the importance of this document in our daily work and because the source of the information originates with your staff, we would like to request that you look into this matter to correct the current mistake and, if possible, have some member of your staff included in a galley proof review procedure to ensure that supplements are complete and accurate.

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

Table 1 -- Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) None Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) None Manual Choke Choke None Head Throttle Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illegi.) (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps or CL (Illeg.) Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash (Illeg.) Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def None Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 COLUMN 5 Alternate Motor Vehicle Equipment Control (Illeg.) Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

n1 Use when engine control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification Lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Framed areas may (Illegible Words).

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE 1 - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) Manual Choke Choke Hand Throttle Throttle Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illeg.) Vehiclular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) or CL LPS Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes (Illeg.) Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

(Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted) Column 1 Column 4 Alternate Permissible Symbol . None None None None None Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) None Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) None None (Illegible Word) areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE I - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Motor Vehicle Equipment Word or Permissible Control Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start ENGINE START n1 None Engine Stop ENGINE STOP n1 None Manual Choke CHOKE None Hand Throttle THROTTLE None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Headlamps and Taillamps LIGHTS n2 (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal HAZARD (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps CLEARANCE LAMPS n3 or CL LPS (Illeg.) Identification Lamps IDENTIFICATION LAMPS or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping WIPER or System (Illeg.) (Illeg.) Windshield Washing WASHER or WASH (Illeg.) System Windshield Defrosting DEFROST or DEF None and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Conditioning System

COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 n3 COLUMN 5 Motor Vehicle Equipment Alternate Illumination Control Permissible Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes n1 Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and (Illeg.) n4 Taillamps Vehicular Hazard (Illeg.) n4 Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) n4 Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Washing (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Defrosting None Yes and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Yes Conditioning System

n1 Use when (Illegible Word) control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side maker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side market lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Heated areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-2.14

DATE: 02/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. E. Moss - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your January 19, 1976, letter asking for further explanation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) position on a school bus seating standard that specifies both passive compartmentalization and the installation of seat belt anchorages.

The NHTSA has issued its school bus seating standard (Standard No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection) in a form that requires compartmentalization of vehicle occupants but does not require installation of seat belt anchorages. There is not sufficient information in the record on which to determine what percentage of school districts would utilize seat belts. The limited evidence available to the NHTSA indicates that only a small fraction of school buses would have belts installed and properly used, and that the decision to mandate seat belt anchorage installation should await further information as to the extent to which belts would be installed and properly used.

The issue of whether the NHTSA is on "safe legal ground in mandating a requirement that in itself does not contribute to motor vehicle safety but requires further action on the part of local officials" has become less urgent in view of the standard's promulgation without anchorage requirements. I would like to respond generally that the NHTSA has always held the opinion in construing the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) that safety performance requirements that require further action by vehicle users are entirely appropriate. While some safety devices (such as bumpers) are in place and operate passively, most devices, (such as lights and seat belts) require occupant action to gain protection. Seat belt anchorages require more action than simple use to gain their benefits, but this does not appear to be a logally significant distinction. In this case, I decided that substantial controversy over the appropriateness and legality of this protection should not continue to create uncertainty over the ultimate form of the standard, endangering the ability of manufacturers to comply with Congress' maximum 9-month leadtime for upgrading school bus seating systems. We have, of course, left the issue of restraints in school buses.

While the decision on passive restraints could negate the value of seat belt training during the adult years, it should be noted the NHTSA is not proposing passive protection for the rear seats of passenger cars where children are encouraged to ride. They would need to use the seat belts provided to increase their protection in a crash.

SINCERELY,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 19, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Thank you for your letter of January 13, 1976, explaining your position on mandatory seat belt anchorages for school bus seats.

Protecting children who ride school buses from the risk of injury is a critical need, well established by the passage of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. I would agree that a zero fatalities/zero injuries record is a reasonable goal for school bus safety. Moreover, a properly conceived seat belt system for school bus seats could potentially offer a high level of protection to the young occupants using them. At the same time, I am compelled to address further questions to you regarding the proposal to require seat belt anchorages alone.

I understand clearly that the idea of requiring seat belt anchorages is to facilitate efforts on the part of local school districts deciding to install belt restraints in new school buses they buy. Moreover, it is clear that if a seat belt system ever becomes mandatory in new buses, the existence of anchorages in older buses will aid school districts deciding to bring buses they already own up to the standard by retrofitting belts into their existing fleet. Finally, I can see the wisdom of seat belts in school buses for training purposes, if we continue to mandate active restraint systems in passenger vehicles generally. Nonetheless, several questions concern me.

(1) Do you believe NHTSA to be on safe legal ground in mandating a requirement that in itself does not contribute to motor vehicle safety but requires further action on the part of local officials -- namely, having belts installed before the added safety feature becomes available for children to use?

(2) Is there evidence in the record of the rulemaking that school districts intend to exercise their option to have belt systems installed once the anchorages become available? If not, how is it possible to justify even the minor cost of this requirement given the absence of any projected benefits?

(3) Regarding the educational value of belt use in school buses, won't the need for this training decline over the next few years if passive restraints are mandatory for new passenger vehicles and gradually introduced into the vehicle population as new cars replace old ones?

I support entirely the "passive protection" approach reflected in the balance of the proposed standard as far as it goes and believe it will offer substantial additional protection to children riding buses. This approach makes particular sense if NHTSA decides to mandate passive restraints in all new passenger vehicles.

On the other hand, if active restraints -- in particular seat belt systems -- continue to be required for the general vehicle population, then it makes sense in school buses to mandate not just anchorages but appropriate and usable belt systems. An appropriate system is one that uses retractors so that belts are self-adjusting in use and stay clean when not in use; that has buckles located in or near the seat fold so that the heavy part of the buckle cannot be wielded in horseplay; and one that will target the child's head against a safe surface if the bus abruptly comes to a halt or crashes.

In short, if we are to protect the integrity of the NHTSA regulatory program, then we should be hesitant to introduce requirements such as this, which offer extremely marginal benefits at best, even by the most favorable analysis.

I have further questions relating to this rulemaking -- particularly whether it adequately meets the mandate established by the Congress in the 1974 Amendments. These questions are perhaps more substantial than the anchorage issue; however, the sufficiency of the balance of the standard is a question I will reserve for the Subcommittee's oversight hearing on NHTSA tentatively scheduled for February 6, 1976.

Thank you for your attention to the questions this letter raises.

JOHN E. MOSS Chairman Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee