ID: aiam5403

"Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard for high theft vehicle lines' replacement parts. The answer to both of your questions is VW is still required to mark the replacement parts in question. In your letter, you explained that the Volkswagen Corrado line, a high theft line, was parts marked (pursuant to 49 CFR part 541) in model years 1990 through 1994. For model year 1995, NHTSA granted an exemption from parts marking for the Corrado line, based on the inclusion of an approved antitheft device as standard equipment on all models in the Corrado line. (58 FR 28434, May 13, 1993). However, you informed us in your letter that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for MY 1995. Your first question asks whether replacement parts for the Corrado line are exempted from the parts marking requirements of part 541. The answer is no. Section 543.7(d) specifies that part 543 exemptions apply only to lines that are the subject of the grant, and are equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based. You inform us that the Corrado will not be offered for sale in the U.S. in MY 1995. If the Corrado will not be offered for sale in this country, then no Corrrados sold in the U.S. will be equipped with the approved antitheft device. If no Corrado is so equipped, the part 543 exemption would not apply to the Corrado line. Thus, Volkswagen would be required to continue to mark any Corrado replacement parts, subject to part 541, offered for sale in the U.S. In your letter, you cited an October 12, 1989 NHTSA interpretation letter to Saab-Scania of America to support your position that the Corrado's replacement parts need not continue to be marked. We do not believe that the letter to Saab supports your position. Saab received an exemption from parts marking for the Saab 9000 for the 1989 model year, and asked NHTSA to clarify the scope of the part 543 exemption. On page two of the letter to Saab, NHTSA stated that Saab was free to discontinue marking of original equipment and replacement parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the part 543 exemption took effect, 'provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition...' The letter to Saab establishes that if it does not install the antitheft device on the exempted line, a manufacturer is not free to discontinue marking replacement parts on the line. Your second question was whether replacement parts marking may be terminated at some point after a high theft line subject to parts marking, is no longer produced. The answer is no. This issue was addressed in the final rule establishing 49 CFR part 541 (50 FR 43166, October 25, 1985): Once a line is selected as a high theft line, each covered major replacement part designed for use on that line must be identified as a replacement part. That requirement remains in effect as long as those replacement parts are produced. (50 FR 43178). Thus, as long as replacement parts are produced for a high theft line subject to parts marking, the replacement parts must continue to be marked. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 06-000030

ID: 002293cmc

Mr. Pierre Villeneuve
Girardin Minibus
Route Transcanadienne
Drummondville, Quebec J2B 6V4

Dear Mr. Villeneuve,

This is in response to your fax of November 4, 2002, requesting information on the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 207, Seating systems, and 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, to commercial buses. In your letter you ask if both FMVSS Nos. 207 and 210 apply to passenger seats on commercial buses. The answer to your question is that FMVSS No. 210 is applicable to passenger seats of all buses regardless of whether they are used for commercial purposes, as long as the vehicles gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is 10,000 pounds or less. FMVSS No. 207 does not apply to passenger seats on buses that are designed for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion regardless of weight.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards and is certified as being in compliance.

FMVSS No. 207 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. (See S2.) However, S4.2 of FMVSS No. 207 establishes general performance requirements, stating that:

When tested in accordance with S5, each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces, in newtons ... (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, passenger seats on buses are excluded from the general performance requirements for seats under FMVSS No. 207, and only the drivers seat of a bus must meet the general performance seat requirements under this regulation. FMVSS No. 207 also sets out requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats or seat backs. (See S4.3.) But again, passenger seats in buses are excluded from this requirement.

FMVSS No. 210 also applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. (See S2.) FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, establishes which designated seating positions on buses require seat belt assemblies and FMVSS No. 210 establishes the standards for the belt anchorages those assemblies are required to meet. In determining whether seat belt anchorages need to be installed, S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 210 references FMVSS No. 208 and states:

Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208[.] Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208[.]

S4.4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 208, states in pertinent part that:

[E]ach bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except a school bus, shall be equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's designated seating position and at the front and every rear forward-facing outboard designated seating position, and with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other designated seating positions.

For buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, seat belt assembly requirements only apply to the drivers designated seating position. (See FMVSS No. 208 S4.4.3.1.) Accordingly, for these vehicles the passenger seats need not meet the requirements of either FMVSS No. 207 or FMVSS No. 210.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.1/16/03

ID: 20754ogm

Patrick M. Raher, Esq.
Hogan and Hartson, L.L.P.
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Raher:

This is in response to your inquiry regarding the visual and audible seat belt warning requirements incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your letter describes the operation of the visual and audible warning systems in the 2000 model year Mercedes-Benz M-Class vehicle. In this vehicle, the visual and audible warning system may operate in one of two modes depending on whether the driver fastens his or her seat belt before or after turning the ignition key to the "on" or "start" position. You indicate that if the driver enters the vehicle and turns the key to the "on" or "start" position prior to fastening his or her seat belt, a visual warning will flash and an audible warning will sound for eight seconds or until the driver fastens his or her seat belt. If the driver enters the vehicle, fastens his or her seat belt and then turns the key to the "on" or "start" position, the visual warning will flash for 4 to 8 seconds and the audible warning will sound for approximately two seconds. You ask if the latter mode of operation, which you describe as "a vehicle start up systems check" complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208, particularly the provisions of S7.3 of that standard.

While acknowledging that S7.3 of Standard No. 208 indicates that an audible warning may only sound when the key is turned to the "on" or "start" position and the driver's belt is not fastened, you submit that the two second audible signal present in the Mercedes-Benz vehicle when a belted driver turns the key to the "on" or "start" position is not an audible warning as that term used in Standard No. 208. Instead, you indicate that the two second audible warning is a limited duration signal that provides the driver with notification that the audible belt warning system is functioning properly. In your view, the two second duration of this "check" signal is sufficiently shorter than the 4 to 8 second warning established by S7.3 so that drivers will neither be confused or annoyed by a signal that sounds when the belt is fastened, even though this is the same signal that is activated when the belt is not fastened. In addition, as S7.3 specifies that the audible warning shall be 4 to 8 seconds in length, you submit that a shorter or longer signal is permissible.

The agency does not agree with your suggested interpretation. Paragraph S7.3 of Standard No. 208 requires a seat belt warning system that activates a 4 to 8-second warning light when the vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position (condition "a"), and a 4 to 8-second audible signal when condition "a" exists and the driver's lap belt is not fastened (condition "b"). Under the mode of operation you describe as occurring when the seat belt is fastened prior to the key being turned to the "on" or "start" position, the audible signal would be activated when ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position and when the driver's lap belt is fastened - when both conditions "a" and "b" exist. However, it would also be activated when a driver's belt is fastened - when condition "a" alone exists.

The functioning of the audible signal when the driver's belt is fastened is not permissible under the standard. The rulemaking notices which led to adoption of the current requirement stated that the agency's intent was that the audible signal operate only if the driver's lap belt is not in use. The agency expressed that same intent in the standard by specifying the light was to function when ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position and the audible signal was only to sound when the ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position and the driver's belt remains unfastened. To interpret the standard to permit the audible signal to operate when the ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position condition regardless of whether the belt is fastened would be to make purposeless the specification that the audible signal sound only when a belt is not fastened.

Further, as NHTSA has emphasized in past interpretations and rulemaking notices, the audible warning signal is most effective when employed judiciously. In establishing the warning signal requirements, restrictions were placed on the operation of the audible warning signal in consideration of the irritation factor associated with the signal but not with the light. To provide a reminder and incentive for safety belt use and to avoid subjecting the conscientious belt user to having to hear an audible reminder to do something that he or she has already done, the agency specified that the signal would not function if the driver's safety belt was fastened.

Your letter indicates that Mercedes-Benz believes that the operation of the audible warning when the driver's belt is fastened serves a valuable purpose, i.e. it purportedly serves as a "vehicle start-up systems check" that alerts the driver that all warning systems are operational. The sounding of the audible warning is, you contend, no different from that illumination of various warning light telltales that are activated when the ignition key is first switched to the on position. Mercedes-Benz believes, therefore, that the sounding of the audible warning for a 2 to 4 second period at this time will neither confuse or annoy drivers any more than the flashing of a telltale at the same time. You further submit that the agency has never indicated, either by regulation or interpretation, that an audible warning that sounds for less than the regulatory time frame of 4 to 8 seconds is prohibited. Last, you indicate that most drivers fasten their belts after turning the ignition switch to the "on" position. In such a case, these drivers would never be subjected to the audible warning that would occur in the Mercedes-Benz vehicle when the belt is already fastened.

NHTSA disagrees with your view of the utility of the audible warning sounding when a belt is already fastened. An examination of the owner's manual for the 2000 model year M-Class vehicle does not reveal any mention of an audible warning "check" function. Without denying the importance of a functioning belt warning system, NHTSA believes that operation of the audible belt warning when the belt is fastened could both confuse and aggravate drivers. This phenomenon becomes particularly acute where, as here, vehicle users are not informed as to the nature and purpose of the "check" signal. The agency also disagrees with your view that our regulations and past interpretations indicate that any such audible warning that is shorter or longer in duration than 4 to 8 seconds when a belt is already fastened is permissible. Both the regulations and our past interpretations make it clear that the audible warning may only sound for 4 to 8 seconds when the ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position and the driver's belt remains unfastened. In regards to your contention that most drivers will never be subjected to the superfluous audible warning, we note that the requirements for belt warnings are intended to establish performance that will adequately protect all drivers.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any further questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.7/12/00

ID: 07-007038 Schonberger magnets and strap holders

ID: nht89-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/89

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA

TO: HOWARD WOLPE -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 12/21/88 FROM HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS TO JAMES BURNLEY; LETTER DATED 12/12/88 FROM DENNIS D. FURR TO HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wolpe:

Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Burnley on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr of Lansing, Michigan. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for admi nistering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Mr. Furr is concerned about the potential safety problems that may result if school bus seats are being overloaded. In particular, Mr. Furr asks whether NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guideline (HSPG) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR @ 1204.4 ), is consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222), with regard to seating specifications. Mr. Furr is particularly interested in how manufacturers are calcul ating the number of seating positions on a bench seat.

I am pleased to address your constituent's concerns. Before I begin, I want to note that we have answered a number of similar inquiries from Mr. Furr in past years.

We have two sets of "regulations" for school buses. The first, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Compliance with these standards is mandatory fo r new vehicle manufacturers, and is enforced by this agency with civil penalties. FMVSS No. 222, with which your constituent is concerned, is one such safety standard. The second set of "regulations," or guidelines, for school buses was issued under th e Highway Safety Act. Guidelines issued under this Act are not mandatory for the states; rather, they are recommended practices. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, to which Mr. Furr frequently refers in his letter, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and pertains to Federal funding of State highway safety programs.

Both FMVSS No. 222 and Guideline No. 17 contain specifications for school bus seating. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 states: "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." The guideline for seating accommodations in HSPG 17 states:

Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufacturers to provide seating accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 4 9 CFR 571.3.

Mr. Furr appears to see a conflict between the formula used in calculating the forces to be applied to the seats of large school buses under FMVSS No. 222, on the one hand, and the use by States and manufacturers of 13-inch seating positions for rating t he capacity of a 39-inch seat, on the other hand. I believe that Mr. Furr's belief in the existence of a conflict rests on a misunderstanding.

We view Standard No. 222 and HSPG 17 as complementary, not inconsistent. HSPG 17 reflects NHTSA's belief that all school bus passengers should be seated in the interest of safety. To that end, the guideline provides that there should be a seating posit ion for each passenger and that the position should be at least large enough to accommodate a 5th percentile adult female. The hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches.

The figure "15" in FMVSS No. 222's compliance formula is not a minimum requirement for the width of a seating position. It is the number which is used to establish the number of designated seating positions and ensures that the forces applied to the sea t during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It is also the number which ensures that the width of the smallest seat is approximately equal to the hip width of the 5th percentile female. That is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female. Use of the figure "15" in the FMVSS No. 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (f or a 38-inch wide seat.) That is only slightly smaller than the 12.8 inch hip width of the 5th percentile female. For a 39-inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger than the hip width of a 5th percentile female.

It should be remembered, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the FMVSS No. 222 formula is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all size occupants. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of wide ly varying ages and sizes, reasonable accommodations may vary between those values. The decision on how many passengers may be

comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved.

NHTSA does not have the authority under either the Highway Safety Act or Vehicle Safety Act to regulate how States use school buses. Therefore, NHTSA could not preclude a State from carrying more passengers on a bench seat than there are designated seat ing positions. However, this agency argues with Mr. Furr that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalizati on. We believe that Mr. Furr's concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by his working with the local school board and state officials.

Mr. Furr is also concerned about a reference in our occupant crash protection standard (No. 208) to a 95th-percentile adult male occupant size. He asks why FMVSS No. 222 uses a 15-inch seat dimension, when FMVSS No. 208 references the 95th-percentile ad ult male occupant size in specifying occupant sizes which safety belts must adjust to fit.

Both FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 222 are directed at providing occupant crash protection. Both of these standards set forth comprehensive requirements that are directed at protecting occupants likely to be inside a vehicle in a crash. With regard to sch ool buses, the agency determined that the crash protection requirements should be developed taking into account the full size range of passengers typically riding on school buses. If we designed the force and deflection (energy-absorbing) characteristic s of the seats for the 95th percentile males, the seats may be too stiff for a small child.

Finally, Mr. Furr asks whether, when voluntarily installing safety belts on large school buses, States are violating Federal law by using S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 in determining how many positions (and belts) there are on a bench seat. The answer is no. FM VSS No. 222 requires safety belts only for the passenger positions of small (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) school buses. Under S5 of the standard, belts on a small school bus bench seat are installed at "W" seating positions, as determined under S4.1. If a State wishes to order belts on its new large school bus and to use the same method for determining the number of belts to be installed, the State may do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam1660

Dear Mr. Frye: This responds to Flxible's October 11, 1974, petition to exempt th 'trackless trolley coach' category of bus from the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*. You describe the vehicle as similar to your diesel bus but without the weight of the diesel engine, and with electrodynamic braking provided by the traction motor to a maximum of 2.0 mph per second in conjunction with brake operation.; I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Flyer Industries Limited on th same subject. The letter describes our position with regard to status of the trackless trolley as a motor vehicle, and also how it must be tested under Standard No. 121.; You have noted several difficulties in testing a vehicle which use overhead electric lines as a source of power. I would like to point out that, as we interpret the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, we have established the policy that a manufacturer may conduct certification testing in any manner it chooses, as long as it is calculated, in the exercise of due care, to demonstrate that the vehicle would pass if tested as specified in the standard. Thus, you would be free to certify the vehicle based on tests without use of overhead lines and the benefit of electrodynamic braking. We understand from your letter that without the weight of the diesel engine the trackless trolley has better braking performance than the equivalent diesel engine.; At this time we have issued a proposal that would establish specia test conditions for certain vehicles and limited exemptions for other vehicles, based on their configuration. We will consider your letter as a petition under this rulemaking action, and we invite you to make further comments to Docket 74-10, Notice 7, within the next 30 days.; We will advise you of our determination by letter or by notice in th *Federal Register*.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5309

"Dear Mr. White: This responds to your letter of December 13, 1993 asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follows. 1. The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between? The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with 'the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates.' (49 CFR Part 568.6). 2. Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front service door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door? The November 2 final rule requires additional emergency exit area (AEEA) for some buses. The amount, if any, of AEEA which must be provided is determined by subtracting the area of the front service door and either the area of the rear emergency door or the area of the side emergency door and the rear push- out window, depending on the configuration of the bus (S5.2.3.1). These are the minimum exits required on all buses. If AEEA is required, the first additional exit which must be installed is a left side emergency door (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or a right side emergency door (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window). The number of exits may vary for buses which carry the same number of passengers, because the amount of area credited for each exit is the area of daylight opening, and because different variations of types of exits are possible. However, in the regulatory evaluation for the final rule, the agency estimated that a bus would not be required to have a roof exit (the second type of additional exit required) unless the capacity was greater than 62 (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or 77 (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window). 3. The 'clear aisle space' required for exit to the proposed side emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip-up type seat or a clear opening of 12', as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be considered a 'flip seat'? The November 2 final rule allowed a flip-up seat to be adjacent to a side emergency exit door 'if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within' the required 12 inch aisle to the exit (S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii)). The agency did not otherwise define a flip-up seat, nor did it include any performance requirements for these seats. 4. Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the 'flip seat' by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidently, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch mechanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring? Standard No. 217 includes requirements for the type of motion and force required to release an emergency exit (S5.3.3). One of these requirements is that the motion to release a door must be upward from inside the bus (upward or pull-type for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms or less). This is intended to lessen the chance of a door accidently being opened, without unnecessarily making the exit more complicated to open in an emergency. In addition, warning alarms are required for door and window exits to notify the driver that the exit has been opened. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht91-6.22

DATE: October 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Elizabeth D. Smith -- Department Head, Community and Special Services, Division of Program Monitoring, State Health and Human Services Finance Commission

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-14-91 from Elizabeth D. Smith to Mary Versailles (OCC 6363)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 14, 1991, "regarding the addition of safety belts to a 1986 Ford Club Wagon" and other similar vehicles. The vehicle is certified as a bus according to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and is primarily used to transport pre-school age children (between three and five years of age) to and from a child development center and on field trips. The vehicle has seat belts for 15 passengers, including the driver. Currently, more than 14 children can be transported in these vehicles, by belting more than one child to a seat belt. However, you are concerned about the legality of doing so. Therefore, you wish to increase the capacity of these vehicles by adding additional belts in the passenger area. The additional belts would be installed by a local Ford dealership.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. Section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) do not apply "after the first purchase ... in good faith for purposes other than resale."

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

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.

In general, this "render inoperative" provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard when modifying a motor vehicle. Violations

of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Before discussing how these provisions would affect the modifications you wish to make, I would like to discuss another issue raised by your letter. While your letter indicates that your vehicles are certified as "buses," it appears that, under Federal law, the person who sold you these vehicles should have sold you a vehicle certified as a "school bus." NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for purposes that include transporting students to and from "school or school-related events." NHTSA has also stated that whether a program for preprimary-age students is a "school" is determined by whether the program is educational or custodial. Based upon phone conversations between you and Mary Versailles of my staff, it appears that our "child development center" would be considered a school. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to SELL any new vehicle that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards to a purchaser that intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, if the seller knew or should have known of the purchaser's intent. However, it is not a violation of Federal law for the purchaser to USE a vehicle to transport school children that does not comply with all the Federal school bus standards. Some states, however, require that only certified "school buses" be used to transport school children.

Later in this letter, I explain why it appears that additional seat belts could be added to a "bus" without violating Federal law. I caution you that my subsequent analysis would NOT apply to a "school bus." Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating requires a seat belt at every designated passenger seating position in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 222 calculates the number of seating positions on a school bus bench seat by dividing the seat width by 15, and rounding the result to the nearest whole number. Therefore, it would appear to "render inoperative" a school bus' compliance with Standard No. 222 if someone were to increase the seating capacity of a school bus.

I will now address the issue of adding safety belts to buses other than school buses. A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. Therefore, the additional safety belts which might be added to your vehicles must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards that apply to safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. For buses manufactured prior to September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 required installation of a safety belt at the driver's designated seating position only. Therefore, the safety belts installed at the passenger's designated seating positions in your vehicles were not required for the vehicles to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208. The vehicle was also not required to have seat belt anchorages at any designated seating position other than the driver's. Since safety belts and

anchorages were not required for the passenger seats in your vehicles, any modifications to the voluntarily-installed belts and anchorages at the passenger seats of your vehicles would not result in a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act.

I note that safety belts and anchorages are now required ton vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991) at every seating position in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. I would also note, that, if the increase in seating capacity was significant, the modifications you are considering could "render inoperative" compliance with a number of safety standards for your buses by overloading the vehicles. However, your letter indicates that the dealership which may perform the modifications on your vehicles has already considered this and determined that the vehicle would not be overloaded.

In closing, I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage you to give the most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: THOMAS D. TURNER -- MANAGER, ENGINEERING SERVICES, BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12-1-89 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, FROM THOMAS D. TURNER, BLUE BIRD BODY CO., ATTACHED; [OCC-4230]

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the meaning of the term "front outboard designated seating position," for the purposes of Standards No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR @ 571.202) and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571 .208). Specifically, you referred to a typical seating arrangement on a small bus your company manufacturers. In this seating arrangement, the driver's seating position is located immediately to the rear of the left side of dashboard. There are no oth er seating positions in the same row as the driver's seat. Instead, a side entrance door and stepwell are to the right of the driver's seat with an unobstructed passage between the driver's seat and the entrance door. To the rear of the driver's seat, there are four rows of passenger seats on each side of the bus, separated by a center aisle that runs the length of the bus. You offered you opinion that the forwardmost passenger seating position on the right side of the bus, which is to the rear of th e driver's seating position and the entrance door and stepwell, is not a front outboard seating position for the purposes of Standard No. 202 and 208. Your understanding is correct.

While NHTSA has never specifically defined "front" seating positions, the agency has used that term to refer to the driver's seating position and all other seating positions in the same transverse or lateral row as the driver's seating position. In the small bus described in your letter, the forwardmost passenger seat on the right side of the bus is not in the same transverse row as the driver's seat; it is to the rear of that row. Therefore, the forwardmost passenger seat on the right side of your bu s would not be a "front" seat for the purposes of Standards No. 202 or 208.