ID: nht76-5.52

DATE: 06/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority's May 17 and 18, 1976, letters asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus or its Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, prevent the utilization of transit buses to transport students to and from school. You ask if a proposed amendment to Kansas statutes would conflict with Federal law or regulation if it exempts transit buses from a requirement that school bus seating be forward-facing.

Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In this case, the proposed section 10 appears to be identical to S5.1 of Standard No. 222 insofar as it addresses the direction in which school bus seating must face. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that this portion of the proposed section 10 would therefore not be preempted by Standard No. 222.

The second portion of section 10 provides an exception to the requirement for forward-facing seats, and it is the NHTSA's opinion that the exception is preempted insofar as it might apply to school buses purchased by a metropolitan transit authority after the October 26, 1976, effective date of Standard No. 222.

In the case of transit buses "designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation," however, the exception does not apply to an aspect of performance regulated by a motor vehicle safety standard (i.e., the orientation of seating in transit buses). It would therefore not appear to be preempted by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The NHTSA recently considered inclusion of transit buses in the definition of "school bus" but concluded that Congress' intent in broadening the definition of "school bus" did not address inclusion of transit buses involved in student transportation. I have enclosed a discussion of this issue that accompanied the redefinition of "school bus."

As you noted in your letter, Highway Program Safety Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR 1204), provides for the transportation of students in school buses and in transit buses.

SINCERELY,

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

May 18, 1976

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

As Chairman of the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority please accept this cover letter to the attached legal request. Let me simply emphasize to you that the question of federal preemption has arisen from all quarters on the State and local level, revelant to our transit authority providing service to the local school board. Your response to our inquiry is of first importance and we appreciate your attention to this matter.

David L. Ryan Chairman

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

May 17, 1976

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority would appreciate an opinion from your office with respect to the use of urban mass transit vehicles in special school route service and school related charter activities.

The Topeka MTA approached the Kansas Legislature in an effort to modify existing and proposed Kansas law so that it would be made clear that our buses can legally provide school related services. Basically our suggestions to the lawmakers would have changed state law so that it was more in line with federal provisions. However, the Director of Highway Safety for the Kansas Department of Transportation contended that the Transit Authority's position was in direct violation of federal law.

The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority believes that federal law allows urban mass transit vehicles to work with local school boards in solving their transportation problems. Please review the enclosed copy of the letter by Mr. Merrell, Kansas Director of Highway Safety, and the copy of our letter responding to such a position.

Needless to say, the view taken by the state agency is adversely affecting our revenue from school related services. The publicly supported transit system should be able to provide a variety of public services.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

Michael D. Hood Legal Intern

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

March 15, 1976

The Honorable Don E. Crumbaker Chairman, House Committee on Education

RE: House Education Committee Amendment to Senate Bill 623

Thank you for the opportunity this morning to discuss with you Senate Bill 623. As we discussed, problems arise regarding the amendment contained in Section 10 of the bill. The portion with which we are concerned is contained on page 10, lines 22 through 29, which follows in part;

Sec. 10. K.S.A. 8-2009 is hereby amended to read as follows; 8-2009. (a) All seats on school buses shall be forward-facing . . . except that the secretary may waive such requirement upon the request of a metropolitan transit authority established pursuant to article 28 of chapter 12 of Kansas Statutes Annotated.

The underscored portion above is the amendment added to the bill by House Committee.

The above amendment is in direct violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection," which was issued on January 22, 1976.

Section 5.1 of the Standard states as follows; S5.1 Seating requirements. School bus passenger seats shall be forward facing.

The Federal Register of January 28, 1976 (acopy of which is enclosed) contains a discussion of the Standard, including the following on page 4017 and 4018;

"The NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Association) designed the seating system in this Standard for protection from fore and aft crash forces, and considers it necessary that the seats be forward facing to achieve the objective of occupant protection."

In addition to the above objection to the amendment, we would also like to point out that a metropolitan transit authority bus may not also operate as a school bus to transport school children to or from school. Recently the NHTSA amended its definition of a school bus. (A copy of which is enclosed.)

The NHTSA concluded that it was in the public interest to continue to excluded buses used in urban transportation from coverage in the new school bus definition, as had been the case in the prior definition.

The NHTSA has repeated frequently that the States must develop long range plans for achieving full compliance with these requirements within a reasonable period of time. The amendment contained in SB623 takes a big step backwards in complying with federal standards. My office has been told by the NHTSA that any state which moves backward instead of forward in complying with the Federal Safety Standards faces the possibility of having federal funding cut or withheld. To avoid that possibility I respectfully request that the amendments to SB623, to which we have referred, be deleted from the bill.

JERRY L. MERRELL, Ph.D. Director of Highway Safety

ATTACHS.

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

April 9, 1976

Representative Ron Hein

The amendment to Senate Bill Number 623 referred to in the letter written by Mr. Jerry Merrell, Director of Highway Safety, Kansas Department of Transportation, to Representative Don Crumbaker, Chairman, House Committee on Education, does not violate federal law nor would it cause the Kansas Department of Transportation to lose federal money. That amendment would have allowed the secretary of transportation to waive the requirement that all seats in urban transit buses be forward facing when those vehicles are providing school charter service.

In 49 CFR 571.3 (b) the federal definition of "school bus" is given. That provision states:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection," which becomes effective October 26, 1976, provides:

Sec. 5.1 Seating Requirements. School Bus passenger seats shall be forward facing.

Since this safety standard speaks to seats in school buses and urban transit vehicles are expressly excluded from the "school bus" definition, there is no federal requirement that all seats in urban mass transit vehicles must be forward facing when those buses are used for school charters.

Furthermore, federal law, by excluding urban transit buses from the school bus definition, did not intend to exclude urban transit vehicles from providing school charter service. In fact, Pupil Transportation Safety Standard No. 17, which sets forth certain requirements with respect to the identification, operation, and maintenance of school buses, specifically recognizes that, because of the dual role they often play, urban transit buses are exempt from certain of those requirements when used for special school route service.

Federal law, then, recognizes the important function served by urban transit vehicles in the overall picture of urban transportation. Although not a "school bus", urban buses are sanctioned to perform school related services.

Senate Bill No. 623, on the other hand, does not recognize the ability of urban transit vehicles to provide school services. By withholding authority from the secretary of transportation to waive seating requirements on urban transit buses when those buses are used for school related services, Kansas may without logical reason, effectively prevent their public transportation systems from working with schools in meeting important public needs.

In view of federal law, Kansas is not prevented from allowing its franchised, publicly supported bus systems the ability to provide school charter services.

Moreover, there is no logical reason to withhold such permission. The Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority has identified that urban transit vehicles are not only as safe as, but safer than the traditional "school bus". School related service by the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority is in the public interest.

David L. Ryan Chairman

Robert N. Salmon General Manager

cc: SHAWNEE COUNTY DELEGATION MEMBERS; JERRY MERRELL, DIR. OF SAFETY, KANSAS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION; JIM GRAY, SUPT. OF SCHOOLS, U.S.D. 501

ID: aiam4675

"Dear Mr. Lagomarsino: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinne on behalf of your constituent, Mike Dunn. You inquired about a school bus passenger restraining device marketed by Mr. Dunn. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received an inquiry concerning a similar device in 1988. A copy of our responses, which detail the requirements applicable to such a device, are enclosed. I will summarize those requirements below. The device being marketed by your constituent, a 'safety bar' for school bus passengers, consists of a padded metal bar which is attached to the seat back of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the safety bar. The bar is hinged to swing up to allow entry and exit of the occupants. The hinge mechanism also allows the bar to drop slightly from its lowered position upon impact in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of abdominal injury. The device operates much like the passenger restraint bars found on certain amusement park rides. As explained by the enclosed letters, federal law does not prohibit the installation of your constituent's product on school buses as long its installation and use would not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the safety bars are to be installed in any new school bus, the manufacturer of the bus would have to certify that the bus with the safety bars installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.222). As the enclosed letters explain, the use of the safety bar would not obviate the need for a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). That standard requires that such vehicles be equipped with either safety belts or automatic restraints at all passenger seating positions. In addition, as explained in the enclosed letters and information sheet, the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosures";

ID: 13945.ztv

Mr. Tom L. Ricca
Tom L. Ricca Associates
1413 Wyandotte Road
Columbus Ohio 43212

Dear Mr. Ricca:

This is in reply to your letter of January 20, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal law and regulations as they may apply to your invention, the "LightGenie."

According to the product literature you enclosed, your invention has the following features. The first is a "40-Second Delay Turnoff"; when the engine is stopped and the ignition key removed while the main lighting switch is on, the lights will be automatically extinguished after 40 seconds. The second feature is "4-Minute Delay Turnoff." When the engine is off, turning the light switch to on will cause the lights which are controlled by the switch to be turned on for four minutes continuously, and then automatically turned off. The third feature is called "4-Hours Blinking Delay Turnoff." Under this feature, when the vehicle engine is stopped, the parking lamps, and headlamps if desired, will blink automatically for four hours before turning off automatically. These three features are acceptable under our law and regulations.

The fourth feature is "Daytime Running Lights", or DRLs as we call them. Whenever the engine is running, the upper beam headlamps will be on, to be extinguished 10 seconds after the engine stops. In addition, the intensity of the headlamps is lowered during the day to avoid glare to other drivers. The lamps switch to lower beam and the parking lamps are illuminated if the outside ambient light level falls below a certain level. However, the main light switch of the vehicle has to be in the headlamp-on position in order for the DRL feature to function. You believe that the LightGenie may not comply with S5.5.11(a) of Standard No. 108 "which can be interpreted as to prevent the production of dangerous glare into the eyes of other drivers by the addition of the on state of either lower beams or upper beams of the headlamps which are not intended to operate as DRL." You would like an interpretation of S5.5.11(a) which would permit your system to be used.

You wish to market the LightGenie in both the OEM and aftermarkets. As you know, DRLs are not required items of original lighting equipment. But once a manufacturer chooses to offer a system that employs lamps on the front of a vehicle that are illuminated during daylight hours, that system must comply with paragraph S5.5.11(a). Paragraph S5.5.11(a)(1) establishes general illumination requirements that do not apply if the DRL system is "(i) a lower beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL at full voltage . . .; or (ii) an upper beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL, whose luminous intensity at test point H-V is no more than 7,000 candela . . . ." As we understand it, the LightGenie activates the upper beam headlamps at something less than full intensity during the daytime, switching to full lower beam intensity under low ambient level light conditions. We interpret S5.5.11 as requiring headlamps used as DRLs to be operated in either the upper beam or lower beam mode as specified above, but not permitting switching between upper and lower beam modes. For this reason, your system would not comply with the specifications for OEM DRLs.

However, there is another reason as well. S5.5.11(a) presently requires automatic deactivation of DRLs "when the headlamp control is in any 'on' position . . . ." Your system requires the headlamp control to be in the "on" position in order to operate. You have asked that we read S5.5.11(a)to require deactivation of DRLs "when any upper beams or lower beams of the headlamps which are not intended to be operated as DRL are turned on continuously . . . ." As a practical matter, we do not see how the vehicle's headlamp system could be operated as a headlamp system if the control must be in the "on" position for the LightGenie to operate. As a legal matter, you are requesting in effect an amendment of S5.5.11(a) beyond the limits of an interpretation.

As an aftermarket device, the LightGenie might be usable on vehicles that were not originally equipped with DRLs as long as it allows the headlamp control to perform its original design function. However, the LightGenie would still have to comply with local laws in order to be operated within any State. We are unable to advise you on state laws, and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the States.

Finally, we call your attention to paragraph S5.5.11(a)(ii) which allows an upper beam headlamp to be used as a DRL only if two conditions are met: that the headlamp's luminous intensity at test point H-V is not more than 7,000 candela, and that the headlamp be mounted not higher than 864 mm above the road surface. This would appear to rule out use of the LightGenie using the upper beam of headlamp of some larger sport utility vehicles and trucks.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:
108
d:3/19/97

ID: nht81-3.14

DATE: 09/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mid Bud Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 SEP 4 1981

Mr. Fred S. Barrington Vice-President Engineering Mid Bus Inc. 710 East Wayne Street P.O. Box 1985 Lima, Ohio 45802

Dear Mr. Barrington:

This responds to your July 28; 1981, letter asking whether a portion of your school bus would be considered part of the sidewall or roof for purposes of complying with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Paragraph S5.3.1.1 defines the head impact zone in which the head protection requirements apply. The bus sidewall, windows and doors are exempted from complying with the requirements for head impact protection even if they fall within the head impact zone. The bus roof, on the other hand, must comply with the requirements if it falls within the zone. In the bus to which you refer in your letter, the bus wall and roof structure are not distinctly separated. You ask, therefore, where the roof stops and the sidewall begins.

The agency has stated by interpretation that the roof begins where the radius of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply. From the sketch that you enclosed with your letter, it appears that the roof would begin at the point marked "B". Assuming that your diagram is correct, the side of the bus below point "B" would be considered part of the bus sidewall and would not be required to comply with the head impact requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 28, 1981

Mr. Roger Tilton National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Mid Bus Inc. builds a van type school bus under 10,000 lbs. GVWR. In this type unit there is a considerable amount of slant or tumble home in the sides. The enclosed sketch shows a typical side of our bus.

FMVSS 222 paragraph S 5.3.1.1 states that the head protection zones are spaces in front of each school bus passenger seat which are not occupied by bus side wall, window or door structure.....etc.

Refer to the enclosed sketch and note that Point "A" is where the side wall intersects the head protection zone. The wall extends upward and inward from that point. The shaded area on the sketch is that portion of the bus that falls in the head protection zone.

On September 28, 1977 NHTSA (NOA-30) made an interpreation for Ward Body Company that the side wall ended and the roof began at a point where the radios of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply. Can we assume that this same point which is shown on the enclosed sketch as Point "B" is above the head impact zone and anything below Point "B" does not have to meet the head impact requirements?

Thank you for considering this matter.

Cordially,

Fred S. Barrington Vice-President Engineering

FSB:pas

Enclosure

ID: nht88-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/88

FROM: C. S. ALLEN -- COMMANDER-DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA RULEMAKING DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO ALLEN

TEXT: This letter is to request an interpretation of the meaning of one sentence contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 (FMVSS 102).

This sentence, found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) Part 571, Section 571.102 S3.1.3, states, "Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive positio n".

The California Highway Patrol has become aware that a major manufacturer of school buses, Crown Coach Incorporated, of 13799 Monte Vista Avenue, Chino, California 91710-5513, has been building vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions which, althoug h equipped with the interlock required by 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3, are also equipped, at the driver's position, with a momentary contact push-button switch, the purpose of which is to bypass the transmission neutral safety switch.

Mr. Greg Alvarez of my staff discussed the legality of this device with Mr. James Cowan, Director of Engineering at Crown Coach, Inc., by telephone on June 24, 1988. At that time Mr. Cowan stated his opinion that the bypass switch complied with FMVSS 10 2 because it was only an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts. He stated that the only way the bus could be started with the transmission shift level in a forward or reverse drive position would be if the driver used both hands, one to operate the bypass switch to the right of the steering column, and the other to operate the regular starter key-type switch to the left of the steering column.

Mr. Cowan stated to this Department that this starter interlock bypass switch is regarded by Crown Coach as a safety feature, intended for emergency use in

the event that the bus engine dies at an inopportune moment, as when crossing a set of railroad tracks, or in case the neutral safety switch contacts fail to close upon selection of neutral range.

Pending your reply it is our position that the bypass switch renders buses equipped with automatic transmissions in violation of FMVSS 102 (and of an identical California state regulation). Crown Coach appears to be interpreting FMVSS 102 as meaning tha t the starter shall not be capable of being started from the driver's position with the transmission in gear unless the driver intends to do that.

As for the argument that the bypass switch allows for quick restarts on rail crossings or other dangerous locations, we feel that if the amount of time required to select neutral range, restart the engine and return to drive range is anticipated to be ex cessive, why not eliminate the neutral safety switch altogether? The driver would then be able to keep one hand on the steering wheel while restarting the engine with the transmission in gear. With Crown's present arrangement, a bus can be restarted in gear only by removing both hands from the steering wheel.

It is our belief that 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3 is intended to prevent motor vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions from being started in gear at any time. We would appreciate your earliest possible response to our request for an interpretation on t his matter, so that our inspectors and the engineering staff at Crown Coach, Inc. will have authoritative information on which to act.

ID: nht79-2.17

DATE: 03/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mar 19 1979

Mr. J. B. H. Knight Chief Car Safety Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Crewe Chesire CW1 3PL England

Dear Mr. Knight:

This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, and January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, Controls and Displays. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must be rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls-Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.

2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirement for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.

(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.

3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibiiity requirements of 101-80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a "few" inches, we mean up to approximately thee inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the acency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.

4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMCSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

NOA-30:KDeMeter:pfp:3/5/79 cc: NOA-30 Subj/Chvon NOA-30 Ms. DeMeter NRMS-11 Interps: Std. 101-80 Redbook: (3) CC

ID: nht88-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/88

FROM: DENNIS D. FURR

TO: HOWARD WOLPE -- UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED TO HOWARD WOLPE, REDBOOK A33, SECTION 103(D) FMVSS 222, HSPG 17; TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 12/21/88 FROM HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS TO JAMES BURNLEY

TEXT: Dear Congressman Wolpe,

In response to a phone conversation with one of your staff I would like to ask you to forward the following questions to the Department of Transportation for their response to the individual questions.

I feel that part of Motor Vehicle Safety Program Standard 17 is in direct violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also feel that the manner in which S4.1 in Safety Standard 222 is being interpreted, influences the overloading of the passive restraint system, and nullifies the safety features of the passive restraint system.

Basically, the questions are in regards to the individual seating position for the passenger in the passive restraint system.

QUESTION #1; Is Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act enforceable on the States, and school districts, and if so by whom?

QUESTION #2; If it is not enforceable, what is needed to make it enforceable?

QUESTION #3; It is my understanding that Standard 222 is the only enforceable Standard that address the passive restraint system, and is the minimum specifications for the passive restraint system.

Is the specifications in Standard 222 the minimum specifications for the passive restraint system?

QUESTION #4; S4.1 in Standard 222 says the number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W" and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.

Is the 15 mentioned in S4.1 the size of the individual seating position for a passenger?

If not, what is the width of the individual seating position?

QUESTION #5; I have been told by NHTSA that Standard 222 is for testing, and applies to the manufactures and is a condition of sale for new school buses.

As a result, NHTSA says the capacity for the standard 39 inch bench seat is 3. 39 divided by 15 is 2.6, and rounded to the next whole number is 3.

I have maintained that S4.1 says rounded to the nearest whole number, and the nearest whole number is 2, and not the next whole number of 3.

Understanding that the 6 tenths represents only 9 inches of the minimum 15 inch seating position for the passive restraint system mentioned in S4.1, and can not be used as a seating position as it is in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, understanding that the 9 inches is less than the minimum 15 inch seating position in the applicable standard 222 which is still in effect.

The NHTSA says they carry the 6 tenths to the next whole number to insure that the bench seat is tested for the maximum number of seating positions.

I have maintained that the maximum number of seating positions in the 39 inch bench seat is 2, and there is not any need to carry the 6 tenths to the next whole number, even for testing.

I have maintained that the pounds of force that the symbol "W" is multiplied by should reflect the correct formula for testing the bench seat, and by adding a additional seating position to the bench seat to insure that the bench seat is tested for the m aximum number of seating positions, casts a shadow of dought on the formulas in Standard 222.

Also understanding that some fractional parts of the bench seats when divided by 15 is dropped, and others do not have fractional parts, and reflect the number of seating positions without adding the additional seating position as in the case of the 39 i nch bench seat.

The question is, what is the correct method for determining the number of the minimum 15 inch seating positions for any of the bench seats length?

QUESTION #6; It is my understanding that Safety Program Standard 17 is an elective Standard. In Safety Program Standard 17, under Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating (1); Seating shall be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufactures to provide seating accommodation for a

person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3.

It is my understanding that the manufactures have to comply to Standard 222, and by complying, Standard 222, and the 15 inch seating position mentioned in S4.1 is the intent of the manufactures, and the minimum seating position for the passive restraint system.

Regardless whether Standard 17 is, or is not adopted by a State, is Standard 222 the intent of the manufactures?

If not, what is?

QUESTION #7; It is my understanding that if Standard 222 is the minimum specification for the passive restraint system, the seating position for the 5th percentile adult female mentioned in Standard 17, would be in violation of Section 103 (d) of the Nat ional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, understanding that the 5th percentile adult female has minimum 15 inch seating position in Standard 222 which still is in effect.

Understanding that NHTSA has in an elective Standard, given directions for the use of a seating position that is less than the seating position mentioned in the enforceable Standard.

Also understanding that because of Standard 17 being an elective Standard by the states, and not a requirement of the manufacture, the 5th percentile adult female is not the intent of the manufactures.

Is the 5th percentile adult female seating position in Standard 17 in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #8; The school bus manufactures are rating the capacity of the bus by a 13 inch seating position instead of the 15 inch seating position for the passive restraint system.

It is now my understanding that this is because the NHTSA has carried the fractional part of S4.1 to the next whole number instead of to the nearest whole number as S4.1 says.

I have maintained that the passive restraint system is to protect the individual, and the method used by NHTSA launders the individual minimum 15 seating position mentioned in Standard 222.

By NHTSA saying the 39 inch bench seat has 3 considered seating positions, the school districts are saying 39 divided by 3 is 13, and maintain that the 13 inch seating position is the seating position for the standard 39 inch bench seat, even though it i s the 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222, and not the 13 inch seating position.

At the same time the school districts are being told the manufactures have complied to the requirements of Standard 222.

Is the method the manufactures rate the capacity of the school bus in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #9; As a result of the manufactures rating the capacity of the bus by the 13 inch seating position, the third passenger in middle or high school is required to sit in a standard 39 inch bench seat on only 9 inches of the bench seat.

This puts the third passenger outside of the head, and leg impact zones as described in Standard 222, S5.3.1, and S5.3.2., understanding that only one leg is in the impact area, and the head would also miss the intended impact zone, and in the event of a collision that passenger would be thrown out of the bench seat and receive additional injuries that he would not normally receive if he remained inside of the passive restraint systems impact area.

Is the placing of part of the passenger outside of the passive restraint system in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #10; According to the Blue Bird letter, the school bus manufactures follow the specifications of the State, and the recommendations of the Tenth National Conference, (1985 Revised Edition, Standards For School Buses and Operations), instead of f ollowing the specification for the seating position in Standard 222.

This is my understanding of a triple violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

First, the States specifications of a 13 inch seating position is less than the 15 inch seating position in the applicable Standard for the passive restraint system, and does effect the performance of the item of equipment by placing the third person in the standard 39 inch bench seat outside of the impact zones for the head, and legs.

Second, the recommendations of the Tenth National Conference, (1985 Revised Edition, Standards For School Buses and Operations), is the same as above, and in addition is the recommendations in part of the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, a political Subdivision of the States they represent, and they have recommended the 13 inch seating position for the 3-3 seating plan.

And third, the Manufactures have ignored the Standards for the passive restraint system in favor of the States

specifications for a seating position that is less than the minimum 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222 when rating the school buses capacity.

Also understanding that the minimum 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222 is not a estimated seating position, and only a seating position above the minimum 15 inch seating position can be rated, or estimated.

Is the above three items in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #11; Standard 222, S4.1 makes reference to a 15 inch seating position. Standard 208, S7.1.1 makes reference to the seating position of the 95th percentile adult male, who has a sitting width of 16.5 inches. Understanding that the seat belt is t o fit a person who is as large as the 95th percentile adult male.

This is the same John Doe sitting in the same length bench seat, and the only difference is in one instance he is sitting on a bench seat in the passive restraint system, and in the other instance he is sitting on the bench seat with seat belts.

Why is there the need of a larger seating position for a person wearing seat belts, than there is for a person seating in the passive restraint system?

QUESTION #12; Because of the trend of wearing seat belts, some school districts are adding seat belts to buses already purchased.

The seat belts are being attached to the 13 inch seating position instead of the 16.5 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 7.1.1. because of the states specifications being 13 inch seating position.

This is also my understanding of a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Is the attachment of the seat belt suppose to be along side of the seating position, or behind the seating position of the 95th percentile adult male?

Respectfully,

ID: aiam3971

Dear Mr. Ito: Thank you for your letter concerning the buckle release requirements o Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. I apologize for the delay in responding to it. You asked for an interpretation of the requirement in S4.5.3.3(a) of the standard that automatic belts must have an emergency release mechanism that is 'readily accessible to a seated occupant.' The following discussion addresses the specific questions you asked.; The purpose of the 'readily accessible' requirement is to ensure that seated occupant can quickly and easily grasp and then release the buckle in an emergency. You explained that you have been reviewing the accessibility of possible installation locations for the emergency release by using a 5th percentile female and 50th percentile male test dummy in various seating positions. You ask whether in determining if the buckle is readily accessible, you can move the pelvic portion of the test dummy or move the seat back to permit the grasping of the buckle.; The purpose of S4.5.3.3(a) is twofold. First, it is intended to mak sure automatic belts are adjustable to fit a wide range of vehicle occupants, as specified in S7.1 of the standard. In addition, it is meant to ensure that the emergency release mechanism for the automatic belt is readily accessible to that same range of occupants. Thus, the release mechanism should be accessible to those occupants with the seat in any design position without the occupant having to take special steps, such as moving the seat back, to grasp and operate the release. I noted that the drawing you attached to your letter indicates that your emergency release is located within the latchplate access zone specified in S7.4.4 of the standard. Although S7.4.4 does not apply to the emergency release mechanism of automatic belts, its purpose is to make it easy for occupants to reach the latchplate of a safety belt system. We would consider any emergency release mechanism required by S4.5.3.3(a) that is within the latchplate access zone of S7.4.4 to be readily accessible as long as the occupant does not have to take any special steps to grasp and operate the release.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4616

"Dear Mr. Strohm: This responds to your letter, referred to me by Mr Edward Jettner of this agency, which asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to authorize the adjustment of the front seat in your Chevrolet Caprice by your automobile dealer. I regret the delay in responding. Your letter and enclosure explained that you would like your dealer to move back the front bench seat in your newly-purchased vehicle to give you more leg room. You stated that the front seat in your new vehicle is mounted closer to the front of the vehicle than the seat in your former car had been, and that you were more comfortable with the latter seat placement. You said that you contacted a customer service representative and that he told you Chevrolet is prohibited by law from moving the seat. You asked how Chevrolet can obtain authorization to make the desired adjustments. Federal law does not directly prohibit your dealer from adjusting the seat, it does, however, indirectly set limits on the modifications. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles and equipment conform to all of our safety standards applying to their product. If a new vehicle is modified before its first sale to a consumer, the person making the modification would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Moving back a seat on a new vehicle could affect compliance with Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat position as long as the modified seat and related safety components continue to perform in the manner required by the applicable standards. Your situation involves the modification of a vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. While our safety standards apply only to new vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on modifications of this type. If a vehicle is modified after its first sale, then /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... Your dealer is not prohibited by /108(a)(2)(A) from making the seat adjustment if the adjustment can be made without rendering inoperative your vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. It may be that the dealer you contacted has determined that it cannot move the seat rearwards without rendering inoperative a component or element of design now in compliance with the Federal safety standards. The prohibition of /108(a)(2)(A) only applies to commercial businesses, not to individuals. Thus, under Federal law, vehicle owners may themselves make any modifications to their vehicles. They must, however, comply with any applicable State laws limiting modifications. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5315

"Dear Mr. McIntosh: This responds to your inquiry about whethe Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), applies to your product. You state that you manufacture a 'composite assembly acoustical abatement product' that is installed against vehicle sheet metal and is then covered by carpet, trim, or the instrument panel. You had further questions about testing your product and certifying its compliance if the Standard applies to it. I apologize for the delay in responding. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The 'Safety Act') establishes a 'self- certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. Under the Safety Act's authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302 which specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Among the listed items that might be applicable to your acoustical abatement product are floor coverings and engine compartment covers. That is, the standard would apply to your product if the acoustical abatement material is a part of one of the covered items and is within 1/2' of the occupant compartment. You indicate in your letter that you are uncertain whether to test your product to Standard No. 302 as a composite with other materials. S4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 states, 'Any material that adheres to other material(s) at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a composite....' You indicate in your letter that your product has multiple layers that always adhere to each other. Accordingly, assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 302, the agency would test your product as a composite material, in accordance with S4.2.2. Please note that there are other NHTSA requirements that could affect the manufacture and sale of your product. A motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer incorporating your product in its vehicles or equipment would be subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles or equipment do not contain any safety related defect. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard...' Under this section, the entities mentioned above are required to ensure that the addition of your product would not adversely affect the compliance of any component or element of design on a vehicle with an applicable Federal safety standard. With respect to Standard No. 302, the addition of your product must not reduce the vehicle's overall flammability resistance. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";