ID: aiam3248

Dear Ms. Garner: This responds to your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of m office in which you asked whether net brake horsepower must be decipherable from the engine type encoded in the vehicle identification number (VIN) of heavy trucks.; The *precise* net brake horsepower of heavy trucks (or any othe vehicle class or type) need not be encoded. This was the point which the agency was making in its March 22, 1979 (44 FR 17489) statement that:; >>>(W)hile net brake horsepower is among the characteristics to b considered in establishing an engine type, there is no requirement that it be encoded in the engine type code. In some instances such as with heavy truck engines, encodement would not be practicable.<<<; However, except as provided below, the *range* of net brake horsepowe must be encoded to differentiate engine types as required by section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115. To define the acceptable range of net brake horsepower for a single engine type, the agency made a clarifying amendment to that section (February 25, 1980, 45 FR 12257). Footnote 1 to Table I provides that otherwise identical engines having net brake horsepower ratings that vary up to plus or minus 10 percent, may be treated as being of the same engine type.; The exception to the requirement to encode the range of net brak horsepower involves manufacturers which intend to utilize more than 33 engine types whose horsepower ranges fall outside the plus or minus 10 percent parameters. These manufacturers will be unable to encode their current or anticipated engine types utilizing only a singe VIN position since there are 33 separate characters authorized to be used for each VIN position. Consequently, they need not encode net brake horsepower in any way. The agency did not intend that more than one VIN position be used to encode net brake horsepower. Using more than one position would be impracticable at this time given the amount of information that needs to be encoded in the VIN.; Please contact Mr. Schwartz should you(sic) have any further question concerning this subject.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0369

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of June 2, 1971, requestin clarification of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, which requires a placard containing specified information to be 'permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location.' Your letter list seven locations on the vehicle (steering column, lower instrument panel pad or knee pad forward of the front seat occupants, sun visor, inside panel surface of the driver's door, door-latch post next to the driver's seat, door edge that meets the door-latch post next to the driver's seat, and door edge that meets the hinge pillar next to the driver's seat) and asks whether each would be considered an 'equally accessible location' under the standard.; The phrase 'glove compartment door or equally accessible location' i intended to require the placard to be affixed to a location where, like the glove compartment door, it can not only be easily referred to, but where it will also be relatively free from exposure to substances that may destroy it or render it illegible. With reference to your list of seven locations, we cannot determine without the specific configuration of the components involved whether placing the placard at any point on the component will meet the requirement. however, we believe the placard could be placed at some point on each of these components or locations so that the requirements of the standard would be met.; Please let us know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3890

Dear Mr. Confidential: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1984, (not received unti October 17, 1984) with respect to questions of compliance of lighting and bumper requirements on a vehicle equipped with a variable height control system.; Standard No. 108 requires that the center of a headlamp lens be no less than 22 inches from the road surface. You stated that this minimum might not be met with respect to certain headlamp configurations when the ignition is off, and the hydraulic pressure in the height control system relaxes, a period of approximately three hours. You believe that compliance with the mounting height requirement should be judged 'with the ignition switch in only the 'on' position,' the apparent point at which the height control system begins to operate.; We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for an lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height.; We also call to your attention paragraph S4.1.3 which forbids th installation of motor vehicle equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and ask that you consider whether a height control system would change vehicle height, pitch, roll, etc., in response to some external or internal condition, in a manner which would affect the performance of headlamps and other lighting equipment.; You have also asked, in essence, which conditions of operation of th system are appropriate for the pendulum and barrier impact tests of the bumper standard, 49 CFR Part 581. Under Sec. 581.5(c), the suspension system is to remain in adjustment and operate in the normal manner, under Sec. 581.6(c) the engine is operating at idling speed. In our opinion, the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test of Part 581 when the engine is idling.; Finally, you requested confidentiality for all information submitte which pertains to the variable height control system. After carefully reviewing the documents, I have determined that your request should be granted. The release of these documents could cause substantial injury to the competitive position of your company. Therefore, I am withholding from the public your letter which contains a detailed description of the variable height control system currently under consideration. I am also deleting all references to the company name. I will instruct all agency personnel having access to this information to accord it confidential treatment.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-1.1

DATE: 05/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. carter; NHTSA

TO: SAAB-Scania of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition of March 12, 1971, for amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illustration.

You petitioned that the abbreviation for the defroster control identification be changed from "DEF" to "DEFR." In the preamble to the reconsideration and amendment of Standard No. 101, (36 F.R. 8269, May 4, 1971), a copy of which I enclose, this agency noted that additional identifying words or symbols are permissible if they do not conflict with the required or permissible words and symbols set out in Standard No. 101. In our opinion your use of "DEFR" would create no conflict.

You also petitioned that certain controls located below the drivers E point and available to all passengers be exempted from the control identification illumination requirement. The recent amendment to Standard No. 101 no longer requires illumination of all heating and air conditioning controls, but only those that direct air directly upon the windshield. We believe this may be responsive to your petition.

Finally, you asked that we define our position on bilingual control identification. Identification in a language other than English is permissible, in the

language of the preamble to the recent amendment, "as long as the additional words . . . do not conflict with the required words . . ."

We hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 12, 1971

Docket Room National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our Reference: T. Needell

Reference: Petition for Rulemaking to Amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 "Control Location, Identification and Illumination" Effective January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1972.

Gentlemen: Under the provision of Sub-part 553.31 of Sections 103 and 119 of The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, SAAB-Scania of America, Incorporated hereby petition that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 be amended as outlined below for the reasons included herein.

I - Table 1 "Control Identification and Illumination" list the acceptable abbreviation for a windshield wiping system control as "WIPE". Table 1 list the acceptable abbreviation for a windshield washing system control as "WASH". Both of these abbreviations contain 4 letters. However, Table 1 list the allowable abbreviation for a windshield defrosting system control as "DEF". (3 letters).

It is our opinion that some form of consistency is in order within Table I. Accordingly, we petition to change Column 2 of Table 1 to read so that the abbreviation "DEFR" (4 letters) is noted as an acceptable abbreviation for a windshield defrosting system control.

We believe that this abbreviation is completely concise as to its meaning. This Company has for several years used the abbreviation "DEFR" to identify the windshield defrosting controls of its products. To change the tooling necessary to bring this particular control into conformity with Column 2 of Table I would cause this Company to charge the customer an additional sum in excess of the list price of the vehicle. This, we feel, considering the above circumstances, is unfair to the purchaser.

II - Table I "Control Identification and Illumination" requires that all windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems and heating and air conditioning controls be permissibly identified and illuminated. Table I makes no provision for the exclusion of rear passenger controls from this requirement.

This Company manufactures a vehicle offering sophisticated rear passenger-oriented controls, which are console mounted at the right side of the driver in approximate alignment with and just below the seated driver's 'H' point. These controls were primarily designed with the comfort of the rear passenger in mind and were so located to be accessible to any passenger in the vehicle.

Since these controls were so located, they, of course, are readily accessible to the driver, as well as rear passengers. SAAB has purposely located these controls to be placed so that the driver is capable of operating such without disturbing his vision. We feel the illumination of such controls will unnecessarily and dangerously burden the driver, by subconsciously attracting his vision to their location, while he performs relative adjustment.

Accordingly, we strongly appeal for amendment of Table I to so read that such rear passenger-oriented controls are not subject to the requirements of F.M.V.S.S. 101.

III - Nowhere, in the recent amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 101, do we note where it is unacceptable for control identification to appear in a bilingual (combination English/non-English) form. Although it is quite apparent which abbreviations or words or combination of abbreviations or words and symbols are permissible, nowhere can we find where bilingual identification is non-permissible.

Because the Administration's position on this subject is not defined within F.M.V.S.S. 101, many manufacturers may retool existing controls to bilingually conform to the requirements of this Standard. If in the event a manufacturer did bilingually retool his controls, it would be an extreme hardship on a smaller manufacturer if the Administration were to amend F.M.V.S.S. 101 so not to allow bilingual compliance in the future.

Accordingly, we ask that the Administration clearly define its position on bilingual identification in the content of F.M.V.S.S. 101. In so asking, we strongly urge that the Administration allow the use of bilingual controls for compliance with F.M.V.S.S. 101. The reasoning behind this request is evident. Immense financial burden will confront the small manufacturer forced to tool two individual sets of controls for the English and non-English speaking markets.

We ask that the Administration give this petition for rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 very careful consideration. In view of the urgency involving the tooling now in progress for model year 1972, we feel that all you can do to expedite such amendment will be beneficial to the manufacturer.

Very truly yours,

SAAB-SCANIA OF AMERICA, INC.

Donald W. Taylor Product Technique Section Manager

cc: R. T. Millet/President, SAAB-Scania of America, Inc.; H. Gustavsson/BT; N. Gustavsson/BTS; B. Ilhage/BTE; L. Nilsson/BTSL; D. Schwentker/Consul A.I.A.

ID: 007571rbm

Stephan J. Speth, Director
Vehicle Compliance & Safety Affairs
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
800 Chrysler Drive CIMS 482-00-91
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2757

Dear Mr. Speth:

This responds to your recent correspondence regarding the telltale requirement in S19.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). Specifically, you ask whether S19.2 permits a compliance alternative other than the passenger air bag telltale to prove that an the air bag is suppressed when an automatic suppression systems sensor does not detect the presence of a child restraint but the system deactivates the passenger air bag whenever the suppression system perceives that the seat is empty. While not constituting a compliance alternative, S19 does permit a device other than a telltale to indicate that the automatic suppression system has deactivated the air bag in those instances where the suppression system perceives the seat as empty.

In your letter you note that in some vehicle seat designs the car bed is too wide to be sensed by the automatic suppression systems sensor. Instead, the sensor perceives that the seat is empty and suppresses the air bag. Because the seat appears to be unoccupied, the telltale does not illuminate.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, buses and light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less starting September 1, 2003, (65 FR 30680). The issue raised in your letter was discussed in the preamble of that final rule.

S19.2.2 requires that each vehicle equipped with an automatic suppression system have at least one telltale that emits a light when the air bag is deactivated and does not emit a light when the air bag is activated, except when the passenger seat is not occupied. The telltale must meet certain requirements further detailed in S19.2.2. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, NHTSA noted that manufacturers could choose not to illuminate the telltale when the passenger seat was unoccupied, even though the air bag has been deactivated. The final rule specifically provides manufacturers with the option of either deploying or suppressing the passenger air bag when the passenger seat is unoccupied. Suppressing the air bag may be advantageous for various reasons. First, the passenger seat is often unoccupied. Deploying an air bag in front of an empty seat would be both costly and unnecessary. Second, suppressing the air bag in all instances below a certain weight threshold could result in a more robust system that, at lower weight levels, automatically assumes any item or occupant on the seat will not benefit from a deploying air bag. NHTSA decided to allow manufacturers to design telltales that do not emit light, even though the air bag is suppressed, because such a requirement would mean that the telltale would be on more often than it was off in vehicles with these types of designs. Since the point of the telltale is to alert the driver of the vehicle that the air bag has been suppressed in the presence of a child, NHTSA was concerned that overuse of the telltale could dilute the telltales important safety message. Accordingly, the regulation specifically permits non-illumination of the telltale in the event that the seat is unoccupied.

However, NHTSA also contemplated a rare situation in which the suppression systems sensing mechanism reads the passenger seat as unoccupied even though a child could be in the seat. Such a situation should occur only when the weight of the child or test device is so slight as to prevent a sensing system from detecting the occupant. Within the context of the tests in the automatic suppression options of the advanced air bag rule, we believe such circumstance is probably limited to a car bed bridging the seat-based sensing system [1] or the three-year-old child dummy sitting on the forward edge of the seat, since in both of these instances the level of weight and/or its distribution on the seat may be sufficiently low to prevent a sensing system from detecting the occupant. Because of the possibility that this could occur under limited circumstances, we added S19.2.3, S21.2.3 and S23.2.3 which require some mechanism that definitively indicates whether the air bag is suppressed. In the preamble we stated that" [I]n order to accommodate a design where the telltale was not illuminated when the seat was empty, but still allow for compliance testing of all of the proposed child seating positions, some of which could look to a suppression system like the seat was empty, we added a requirement that the vehicle come equipped with a mechanism that would indicate under all circumstances whether the air bag was suppressed." 65 FR 30723. The mechanism need not be located in the occupant compartment unless the required telltale serves that function.

While this approach has the disadvantage of sometimes not notifying a parent or caregiver that the automatic suppression system has suppressed the passenger air bag, we balanced this concern against competing concerns that the telltale may be disregarded due to overexposure or that a sensing system may be unable to detect the presence of a child under certain real world operating conditions. In the event that a manufacturers suppression system is unable to always detect the presence of a child for whom the system is designed to suppress the air bag, this information must be included in the owners manual so that a parent or caregiver is aware that the telltale may not always illuminate in the presence of a small child. Such information is already required to be provided pursuant to S4.5.1(f)(2)(iv) of the standard.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.3/8/04





---

[1] The car bed is unique among child restraints because it is installed sideways across the seat, it is designed to accommodate only very small infants, and the seat belt is not cinched down when testing the suppression system. This combination of factors could reasonably result in the car bed placing virtually no weight on a seat-integrated sensing system.

ID: aiam1311

Dear Mr. Pudinski: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1973, in which yo asked that we review an enclosed opinion by the California Attorney General on the question of preemption of California motor vehicle regulations by Federal standards. The opinion concluded that the California requirement that motorcycles be wired so that their headlamps are lit whenever their engines are running was not preempted. This conclusion was contrary to the position taken in an NHTSA letter of November 14, 1972, to Mr. Edward Kearney.; We adhere to the position stated in the November 14, 1972, letter tha the California requirement is preempted, and consider the legal opinion by the California Attorney General to be an erroneous view of the Federal law.; The opinion properly viewed the question as turning on the applicatio of the phrase in S. 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), 'applicable to the same aspect of performance.' If the Federal standard (Standard No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108) covers a given aspect of performance, any State requirement must be identical to it. The California opinion relied on the language in the main opinion of one of the Super Lite cases, *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (1969), that preemption should be 'narrowly construed', and went on to find that since Standard 108 does not specifically address the matter of wiring the headlamps when the engine is running, that aspect of performance is not covered by the standard and the California law is valid.; More important, however, than the nebulous concept of whethe preemption is 'narrowly' construed (a concept with which Judge Friendly, concurring in *Chrysler*, did not agree) is the point made at the end of the main opinion, that the administering Federal agency was supporting the State's position regarding the scope of the Federal regulation. The Court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court in *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268, 276 (1969):; >>>[W]hen construing an administrative regulation, 'a court mus necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt. . . . [T]he ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'<<<; In this case the situation is the opposite of that in the Super Lit cases. The NHTSA's position is that the standard does cover the aspect of performance in question. As stated in the NHTSA letter of November 14, 1972, the standard 'establishes requirements for motorcycle headlighting, along with special wiring requirements for motorcycles and other vehicles.' It is the intent of the NHTSA that its requirements for headlamp performance, configuration, and wiring cover all aspects of performance directly involving headlamps, and thus preempt any non-identical State standards relating to headlamps.; The implication of the California opinion is that any mode of design o performance that is not expressly dealt with in the Federal standard is open to regulation by the States. Such a position is impractical, where the agency's intent is to have a comprehensive, uniform regulation in a given area. In order to preempt the field it would be necessary for a Federal agency to anticipate the imaginative regulatory impulses of future State agencies or legislatures and include in a standard such provisions as, 'It is not required that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running.' Congress clearly intended the NHTSA to establish a single set of uniform standards to which manufacturers must comply, and that intent would tend to be defeated by the position taken in the California opinion. Federal regulation has a negative as well as a positive aspect: in determining that there should be certain requirements in an area, we also are deciding against imposing others. The only way to effectuate such a decision is to declare, as we have done here, that our regulation is intended to be exclusive, and to describe as necessary its outer limits.; The California opinion's factual comparison with the Super Lite case is also inapt. The Super Lite itself was a new type of lighting equipment, a supplementary lamp, for which Standard 108 contained no requirements. Headlamps, by contrast, are comprehensively regulated by the standard.; For these reasons, we conclude that the California requirement tha motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running is preempted by Standard 108, and void.; While we feel constrained by law to so conclude, I want you to kno that I have instructed my staff to consider the merit of amending the Federal lighting standard to include the California requirement in 108.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam5140

"Dear Mr. Baloga: This responds to your letter asking whether th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to a special seat belt installation in a Mercedes-Benz car owned by a man who weighs approximately 500 pounds. You stated that the owner cannot use the driver-side seat belt because of his large body size and that your special order 12-inch longer belt is still too short. You indicated that your factory has supplied a 30-inch longer seat belt, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209: --the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B-pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool, --the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test, --no certification label is attached. As you are aware, our agency is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. In certain limited situations in the past where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability, NHTSA has stated that it would consider certain violations of Safety Act provisions as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above, as we equate the special needs of a 500 pound individual with the needs associated with a disability. I note that we expect manufacturers to provide complying seat belts that are appropriate for the normal range of occupant sizes, including large persons. Mercedes-Benz appears to do this, as it provides a (presumably complying) special order 12-inch longer belt for large persons. We recognize that a 500 pound individual is outside the normal range of occupant sizes. You stated that requests for extra long seat belts are likely to continue and asked whether Mercedes-Benz needs to advise NHTSA of each and every special installation or whether it is sufficient to keep appropriate records of the VIN. I note that if the agency was presented again with the same factual situation, we would expect to make the same decision. However, we would want to be advised of each such special installation. One of the factors behind our position is the special nature of the factual situation. If Mercedes-Benz wanted to provide extra long seat belts on a routine basis, we would expect it to provide a design that fully complies with Standard No. 209. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Jerry Sonosky, Esq. Hogan & Hartson";

ID: aiam3253

Dear Mr. Gerken: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1980, to Mr. Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. You asked whether the labels and installation diagrams required by the standard must comply with Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. In addition, you asked whether an upholstery tag, required by State law, attached to the seat must comply with Standard No. 302.; Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires 'each material used in a chil restraint system' to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. Because the label, installation diagram and tag materials are affixed to the child restraint, they would have to comply with Standard No. 302.; Section 4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 provides that 'any material tha adheres to other materials at every point of contact' shall meet the performance requirements of the standard 'when tested as a composite with the other materials.' Thus, if the label, diagram and tag are affixed to the plastic shell of the restraint so that they adhere to the shell at every point of contact, they would be tested with the shell. If the label, diagram and tag do not adhere at every point of contact, section 4.2.1 requires them to meet the performance requirement of the standard when tested separately.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3881

Dear Mr. McCormick: This responds to your November 21, 1984 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to school buses. Our answers follow your specific questions which we have restated below.; 1. Do the Federal school bus standards in fact preclude a schoo district from transporting pupils in vehicles not meeting all school bus standards?; To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets o regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect a school district's choice of buses. The first of these are the motor vehicle safety standards to which you refer in your letter. These safety standards were issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563, 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) and apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If a school district plans to buy a *new* bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. The Federal sanctions are directed against the dealer or manufacturer who sells a new noncomplying bus to a school for school use. Strictly speaking, a school district is not prohibited by our school bus safety standards from operating a noncomplying school bus.; There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if Colorado ha adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564, 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked 'School Bus.' Therefore, although the Vehicle Safety Act would not prevent a school district from operating a noncomplying school bus, HSPS 17 might affect your school districts if Colorado has adopted it and if Colorado accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. I have enclosed a copy of HSPS 17 that was photocopied from volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1204.4, as requested by your associate, Mr. Joseph Marchese.; If Colorado chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.; Having said this, however, I would like to restate the importance tha our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. Such a bus has safety features such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. These are features that school districts should consider when deciding to purchase their school vehicles.; 2. May a state set out definitions of vehicles (for transportation o pupils) which do not meet all applicable school bus standards? If not, what penalties may be applied?; Our Federal motor vehicle safety regulations define a bus as a moto vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus as a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of a State not to adopt the Federal classification has no affect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.; Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no Stat shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.; The preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact tha a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. A State decision to adopt all or none of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle in accordance with the Federal standards.; 3. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle not meeting al applicable school bus safety standards and uses it for transporting pupils, what penalties may be applied? Would such penalties apply if the vehicle is used for 'activity' transportation only?; As we explained above, the school district that purchases and uses noncomplying school bus would not be subject to Federal sanctions under the Vehicle Safety Act. It is only illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to sell such a vehicle to a school knowing that the school will use it to transport students. Any person selling new vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Vehicle Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $1,000 per violation. Further, in regard to the second part of this question, the answer is yes. The penalties would apply to a person selling a new bus to a school for school related activity trips if that bus is not certified to the Federal safety standards.; You should note that although a school district would not be subject t Federal sanctions under the Safety Act for buying and using a noncomplying bus, using such a vehicle as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.; 4. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle meeting al applicable school bus standards and modifies such a vehicle, is there a penalty? For example, replacement of 222 seating with seats not in compliance with the 222 standards.; The answer is no. Nothing in the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits an owner such as a school, from modifying its own vehicles. However, the Act does prohibit dealers, manufacturers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The school can replace the seats of the original school bus with seats that do not comply with FMVSS No. 222 if it so desires. As we pointed out above, the school could be subject to increased liability in case of an accident. We suggest that you discuss this matter with your attorney or insurance agency.; 5. Is NHTSA at present considering any amendments to the existin standards for school buses? Also, are any additional standards likely to be promulgated with the next year?; Our agency has recently received a petition for rulemaking requestin that FMVSS No. 222 be amended to set certain specifications for seat belt performance on large school buses if seat belts are voluntarily installed on these vehicles. The decision to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking will be made by NHTSA in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.; 6. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has set out severa recommendations for 'activity' buses. Does NHTSA concur in these recommendations? (These refer to certification/training of mechanics, etc.); Enclosed is a copy of a November 2, 1984 letter from NHTSA' administrator, Diane K. Steed, to Chairman Burnett of the National Transportation Safety Board, which comments on several recommendations NTSB made regarding school bus repairs, certification of mechanics, instruction on emergency equipment use, et cetera. I believe this letter will discuss your concerns thoroughly.; If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact m office.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1624

Dear Mr Humphreys: This responds to your October 8, 1974, requesting in behalf of Chinoo International that the NHTSA specify the requirements established for side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) which are designated seating positions. You also ask if the final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle would be solely responsible for compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and for any safety-related defect later found in the side-facing seats.; Standard No. 207, *Seating systems*, applies to MPV's but it specifie no requirements for the side-facing seats you describe unless they have a hinged or folding back. Section S4.2 specifically excludes side-facing seats from all seat strength requirements. Section S4.3 specifies requirements only for 'a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back.' Section S4.4 only requires labeling of 'seats not designated for occupancy.'; Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, applies to MPV's an requires MPV's manufactured during the period from January 1, 1972 to August 14, 1975, to have a Type I or Type II seat belt installed at each designated seating position. A Type I or II seat belt assembly means that the belt assembly must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 209, *Seat belt assemblies*. Further requirements would apply to a designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area.; Standard No. 210, *Seat belt anchorages*, also applies to MPV's Paragraph S4.1 requires that seat belt anchorages be installed for each designated seating position, including side-facing seats. Paragraph S4.2 specifically excludes the anchorages provided at side-facing seats from any strength requirements. Paragraph S4.3 specifies certain location requirements for the placement of seat belt anchorages on side-facing seats.; Part 567, *Certification*, requires that, in the case of vehicl manufactured in two or more stages, the final-stage manufacturer (defined in Part 568 as a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle) must certify compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards by affixing a label to the vehicle (S 567.5), unless the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or intermediate vehicle manufacturer assumes legal responsibility. The fact that Toyota retains title to the vehicle does not affect a determination of legal responsibility. As described in your letter, Chinook would be the final-stage manufacturer responsible for compliance with all applicable safety standards. In discharging this responsibility, he may rely on data furnished by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.; We are unable to state flatly that Chinook, as the final-stag manufacturer, would be solely responsible for defects in side-facing seats. We have authority over a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and could therefore pursue any safety-related defect with the seating manufacturer (which may or may not be Chinook). As for seat strength, I cannot at present envision a situation in which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for safety- related defects in the side-facing seats built by Chinook.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel