ID: 14385a.ogm

Mr. Paul Wagner
President
Bornemann Products Incorporated
402 Industrial Drive
P.O. Box 427
Bremen, IN 46506

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, as it applies to a seat design having a reclining mechanism and an upper seat belt anchorage integrated into the seat. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Confirming your understanding, Standard 207 applies to an integrated seat "as currently provided." The integrated seat must meet the general performance requirements of S4.2, the requirements of S4.2.1 for seat adjusters, and unless excepted, the requirements in S4.3 for a restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs.

You are concerned that a reclining mechanism on an integrated seat that adjusts only for comfort would not be adequately evaluated under Standard 207. The seat would be excluded from S4.3 under the terms of that section because it would be "a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants." While the seat would be subject to the general performance requirements of S4.2, you state that the test procedure is inadequate for the recliner because much of the load placed on the seat and seat belt anchorage would be absorbed by the side struts described in S5. You state: "In real life, an integrated seat may experience movement from one adjustment position to another, as in a change in detent of the seat recliner due to the shearing of the recliner's teeth, but yet in the lab scenario, still comply with the test requirements in Standard No. 207."

The exclusion from S4.3 for seat backs which adjust only for the occupant's comfort is very limited. If a seat back also adjusts for any other reason, i.e. to allow access to other areas of the vehicle or to provide additional range of adjustment for seat belts, the seat would be required to have a restraining device which meets S4.3.

I also would like to take this opportunity to respond to your comment that a seat may experience movement from one adjustment position to another and still comply with Standard 207's requirements. As S4.2.1 applies to adjustment of the seat back as well as the seat itself, the seat back of an integrated seat with a reclining mechanism must remain in its adjusted position when tested under the procedures outlined in S5.

We also note that your letter suggests establishing test procedures for integrated seats. NHTSA is currently studying possible changes to Standard No. 207 as well as the October 28, 1997 petition for rulemaking submitted by your company.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:207
d.3/5/98

ID: aiam4337

Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your April 23, 1987, letter on behalf of you constituent, Ms. Nadra L. Angerman of Wrangell, who is concerned that there is no Federal requirement for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.; I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Ms. Angerman's concerns. A explained below, NHTSA does not require large school buses to have safety belts for passengers because we require those buses to provide an alternate form of passenger crash protection. Our safety standards are directed at improving the interior of large school buses so that passengers will be provided adequate crash protection even if safety belts are not used.; I would like to begin with some background information on our schoo bus regulations. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.* Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization refers to designing the interior of large buses so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The key features include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance.; Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus drive since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses.; However, because large school buses already offer substantia protection to passengers, we believe a Federal requirement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. Large school buses are very safe vehicles not only because they meet Federal school bus safety standards, but also because of their size and weight, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. TSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large school buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own preferences regarding pupil transportation.; A June 1985 NHTSA publication entitled, 'Safety Belts in School Buses, discusses many of the issues relating to safety belts in large school buses. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.; I hope you have found this information to be helpful. If you or you constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William G. Hilton -- Manager, Vehicle Standards Technical Development Section Transportation and Safety Building (Harrisburg, PA)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William G. Hilton, Manager Vehicle Standards Technical Development Section Transportation and Safety Building, Room 407 Harrisburg, PA 17123

Dear Mr. Hilton:

I am writing to you at the request of Mr. John Patchuka, Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor Vehicles, concerning the effect of Federal law and regulations on small vans that are being used to transport school children in Pennsylvania. Mr. Patchuka's letter to me included several letters and memoranda from Pennsylvania officials, to which I will refer from time to time in my reply.

Briefly stated, it is my opinion that any van with seats for more than ten persons that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events must comply with tha standards for school buses issued by this agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-565 (hereafter, the Vehicle Safety Act). These standards include requirements for school bus lights and for mirrors. It is my further opinion that if the highway safety program standard on pupil transportation safety issued by this agency under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-564 (hereafter, the Highway Safety Act) were to be fully incorporated into Pennsylvania law, a van required to be equipped with school bus lights and mirrors would also have to comply with the painting and marking requirements for Type I school bus vehicles under that standard.

I believe that much of the confusion on the question of van-type school buses arises from the fact that we have issued regulations at various times under two separate statutes. The potential effect of the regulations is sometimes not apparent unless they are read side by side. This is particularly true of the basic definitions. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, which applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles:

"School bus" means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools.

This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety (Public Law 93-492). As part of our effort to implement the school bus amendments, we undertook rulemaking to establish a regulatory definition. In the course of this rulemaking, we noted that the capacity of a "school bus" as defined in the Act (more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver) was one person larger than the capacity of a "bus" as defined in the standards (more than 10 persons). To make the regulatory definitions consistent, we defined a "school bus" as a category of "bus", thereby including a vehicle with a capacity of more than 10 persons including the driver. The complete regulatory definitions of "bus" and "school bus" are as follows (49 CFR S571.3(b)):

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

"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.

Pennsylvania's recent enactment of Act 1984-146 conforms the definition of "school bus" under Pennsylvania law to our regulatory definition in 49 CFR S571.3.

Although we have exercised our discretion under the Vehicie Safety Act to exclude certain transit-type vehicles, the great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of school bus. More specifically, any new bus sold to a school district, or to a school bus contractor, is considered to be a school bus and must comply with the school bus safety standards applicable at the time of sale. A dealer or distributor who sells a non-complying bus to a school district or school bus contractor is subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

Under the Highway Safety Act, which deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States, we defined Type I and Type II school vehicles in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, 23 CFR S1204.4 (hereafter, HSPS 17). These definitions are as follows:

"Type I school vehicle" means any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. This definition includes vehicles that are at any time used to carry schoolchildren and school personnel exclusively, and does not include vehicles that only carry schoolchildren along with other passengers as part of the operations of a common carrier.

"Type II school vehicle" means any motor vehicle used to carry 16 or less pupils to or from school. This does not include private motor vehicles used to carry members of the owner's household.

The distinctian between school vehicles according to whether their passenger capacity is more than 16 appears only in HSPS 17, which relates only to the operation of the vehicles. At the point of sale, the Vehicle Safety Act standards apply. An 11 passenger bus, for example, would be required to be sold with school bus lights and mirrors conforming to the requirements for school buses found in Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 111 (49 CFR SS571.108, 571.111), the same as a school bus with a capacity of 44 passengers.

This is the point at which the interaction between the different Acts becomea crucial to an understanding of the lighting and marking requirements of HSPS 17. For the smaller buses that it defines as Type II school vehicles, HSPS 17 creates alternative requirements in Section IV.B.5.a: a Type II school vehicle must either (1) conform to the requirements applicable to Type I school vehicles (yellow paint, black bumpers, warning lights, and "School Bus" signs), or (2) be devoid of all school bus equipment and identifying features. There is no middle ground: Type II school vehicles must be either fully equipped and identified, or not equipped or identified at all. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). It therefore has the equipment specified by HSPS 17 for Type I school vehicles. Because it must have this equipment, it would not comply with IV.B.5.a(2) of HSPS 17. In a State whose law fully incorporated HSPS 17, such a bus would have to be painted and signed, as required by IV.B.5.a(1).

Let me stress once more that if a school district or school bus contract operator purchaces a bus to transport students, that bus must comply with the federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses, including the requirements for warning flashers, regardless of the provisions of State law. It is not relevant for Vehicle Safety Act purposes that the bus might be used in some areas where its warning signals may not be activated. The only relevant question is whether the bus will be used to transport students to and from school or related events.

The memoranda and letters attached to Mr. Pachuta's letter reflect differing interpretations of one section of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code which bears on the question of school bus equipment. This section, 75 Pa.C.S. S4552(h), provides that

established by the department shall not require vehicles which pick up and discharge schoolchildren only at locations off the highway to be of any particular color or to display flashing red and amber lights.

The letter from Mr. David H. Dille, Assistant Solicitor for the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, asserts that this section prevents the State from requiring a Type II school vehicle to "be painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow and to be equipped with flashing red and amber lights." In contrast, the opinion of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, as reflected in the letter of March 13, 1984, from Douglas K. Tobin, Director of Driver Licensing, and the supporting memorandum from Michael R. Deckman, Deputy Chief Counsel, is that the Federal regulations interact to require Type II school vehicles to be equipped with warning lights, yellow paint, and "School Bus" signs.

In my view, Mssrs. Tobin and Deckman are essentially correct. Mr. Deckman's memorandum cites the passage in the guidelines we issued in Notice 900 on June 1, 1977, in which we concluded that HSPS 17 would require buses equipped with the school bus lighting system to be painted and signed. We have consistently maintained this position in subsequent memoranda and correspondence, and we believe that it reflects the operation of a "Federal law or regulation" that prevents Section 4552(h) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, by its own terms, from allowing the use of school buses without warning lights and yellow paint. This is the case even though our agency has not elected to insist on the State's compliance with HSPS 17 as a condition for receiving highway safety funds.

As a final note on the operation of school buses under Section 4552(h), it is consistent with the Federal regulations for a State to designate areas in which school bus warning lights may not be used. The standards under the Vehicle Safety Act regulate only the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, not their use. Under the Highwsy Safety Act, section C.3.b of HSPS 17 expressly states that the "use of flashing warning signals while loading or unloading pupils shall be at the option of tne State." Thus, while our regulations require s school bus to be equipped with school bus warning lights, we do not specify the circumstances in which the lights must be used. If Pennsylvsnis chooses to invoke Section 4552(h) by designating aress in whioh warning lights should not be used, it may do so.

To summarize, our laws and regulations provide that:

o A vehicle is a bus under the Vehicle Safety Act if it is designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

o A bus sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events is s school bus under the Vehicle Safety Act.

o A school bus manufactured after the effective date of a school bus safety standard under the Vehicle Safety Act must comply with the standard.

o The safety standards now in effect require school buses to have school bus warning lights, mirrors and other safety equipment.

o Under the Highway Safety Act, HSPS 17 provides that a school bus equipped with school bus warning lights must also be painted yellow and marked as a "School Bus".

o A State is free to specify the circumstances under which the warning lights are to be used.

I hope that you will find this letter responsive to your needs. Please do not hesitate to write if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 22851ogm

Ms. Shannon Dunn
Lorensen Toyota
P.O. Box 427
Old Saybrook, CT 06475





Dear Ms. Dunn:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding modification of a 2001 Toyota Avalon for a passenger with a urologic condition. Your letter, which was accompanied by a letter from the vehicle owner's physician, indicates that the owner is unable to wear a seat belt due to the aforementioned disability. You request permission to remove or disable a warning light that illuminates whenever the front passenger seat is occupied while the seat belt for that seating position remains unfastened.

I would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Paragraph S7.3 of Standard No. 208 requires a seat belt warning system with a warning light and an audible signal to warn when the driver's lap belt is not fastened. However, S7.3 applies only to the driver's seating position and does not apply to the passenger seating position.

The seat belt warning light for the passenger seating position is not required by Standard No. 208 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business would be able to disable or remove the passenger seatbelt warning light described in your letter without violating Federal law. However, such a business could not disable the warning light applicable to the driver's seating position.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.6/1/01

ID: nht95-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1995

FROM: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products Incorporated

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Ref: Your letter dated December 23, 1994, copy enclosed

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/21/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO PAUL N. WAGNER (A43; STD. 207)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

Thank you very much for your response to my questions concerning seating systems, FMVSS # 207. I would like to expand this inquiry somewhat further, and request a clarification accordingly, so as to eliminate any doubt on the issue of integrated seats.

For definition's sake, an integrated seat will refer to a seating system having the seat belts mounted to the seating structure, with the "D ring" mounting located on the seat back itself (instead of the wall pillar as most vehicles have today).

To clarify the issue of FMVSS # 207 static testing, it is clear that the only adjusted position exception is the vertical movement of nonlocking suspension seats while loads are applied. You have also made it very clear that the seating structure may be tested in any adjusted position, however there is still another question.

In order to be specific, if an integrated seat is tested to FMVSS # 207, when the loads are applied, a rachet-style seat recliner mechanism may not have its adjustment teeth shear during the test, since the seat must maintain its adjusted position, and t he shearing of the recliner teeth is an adjustment change. Is this supposition correct, assuming that the shearing of the recliner's teeth is a change in detent position?

The premise above does allow for normal structure deformation that does not change the detent position.

Lastly, a question that was not proposed earlier concerns continuous engagement, which simply implies that the seat recliner or slides will always be in a locked position, even during adjustment. Some slides and recliners, for adjustment purposes, must be "unlocked," or released, allowing for the adjustment to be made, but then automatically relock when the desired position is achieved; this adjustment method is not considered to be as continuously engaged, since the mechanism is in a released state du ring adjustment.

An apparatus that might be considered to be a continuous engagement device might be a screw-drive mechanism, which can be adjusted by revolution, but would always have a locking feature, even during adjustment (and never be in a released position).

Must a seat recliner or seat slides have "continuous engagement," in order to comply with FMVSS # 207/# 208/# 210 specifications on integrated seating? What this question addresses is the time frame when a seat recliner or seat slide may be disengaged, or released, during use while a vehicle is in motion, since the seat is not locked at these adjustment times, and the seat belt system is attached completely to the seating system.

I apologize for the continued questioning on this issue, and hope for your earliest response.

Thank you very much for your consideration of the above matters, as it is very much appreciated. If I can be of service, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Again, our thanks for your help!

ID: 1983-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Middletown Van Pool Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your note of May 27, 1983, attaching correspondence between yourself and a District Manager for Ford Motor Company. You requested that we investigate the Ford E-150 van (which you state is a 15-passenger van) to determine if the stated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of that vehicle is accurate.

Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required by the agency's regulations to place a certification label on the vehicle specifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations (issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966). This certification label must include information regarding the vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3):

"(3) "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" or "GVWR", followed by the appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds."

Thus, you are correct in your assumption that the GVWR for a 15-passenger vehicle would have to include 2,250 pounds for occupant weight. Further, if a 15-passenger vehicle has a stated GVWR of 6,200 pounds, its unloaded vehicle weight could not exceed 3,950 pounds. I cannot state whether the Ford E-150 van has an unloaded vehicle weight in excess of this figure. However, I am sending a copy of your correspondence to our Office of Enforcement so that they may review this matter.

SINCERELY,

Marriott Hotels

5/27/83

MR. FRANK (Illegible Word) CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

THE ATTACHED FILE I BELIEVE POINTS TO A PROBLEM FORD MOTOR CO. HAS AND THEY NEED TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION ON.

THANKS FOR LOOKING INTO THIS PROBLEM.

(Illegible Words) May 21, 1983

Mr. J. R. Rose - District Manager Ford Motor Company

Dear Mr. Rose

Just a note to let you know that I received your May 17 letter which contains various specific accuations that "you (refering to the writer) apparently intensified the problem of load by actually carrying an overload". Sorry to inform you Mr. Rose, but you are totally misinformed and there is some question on the facts you put forth. Consider:

1. A Ford representative, Mr. Frank Palbo, speced out the Van in question. . . .as per the attached specification sheet. He had very simple guidelines.

(a) Want a 15 passenger Ford Van

(b) Want to carry 10 passenger in Captains Chairs

(c) Want individual reading lights for each Captains Chair.

2. Frank's note of August 17, 1981 and vehicle layout (copy attached) indicate,

(a) Seats will fit

(b) Van converter will do the job

(c) Finance Company approved the lease.

3. Consider Mr. Rose, I specified a 15 Passanger Ford Van. . . .which normally contains:

(a) Two front seats . . . . equals 2

b) Three bench seats holding three persons each . . . equals 9

(c) One rear bench seat holding four people . . . equals 4

(d) If my math holds up . . . that is 2 + 9 + 4 = 15 people

(e) If your letter is correct, I quote "10 passengers possibly totally 1500 lbs" is correct . . . then your Ford 15 passenger van carries a payload of 15 times 150lbs = 2250 pounds of payload.

(f) Since we are saving 5 passengers we should be saving . . . . 5 times 150lbs = 750 pounds.

(g) Now, we added 8 captains chairs on bases verses your 4 bench seats . . . and since our seats our top quality, we'll agree they probably weigh on a two for one bases, 50 pounds each more than seats . . . so eights seats times 50lbs. = 400 pounds.

(h) O.K. - I saved 750lbs. by carrying 5 less passengers - I added 400lbs by using Captains Chairs . . . so basic subtraction says 750 minus 400 equals 350 pounds.

(i) Now the Van converter recommended we beef-up your flooring along with insulating the floor so we added 3/4" plywood to the floor in under your luxurious carpeting. Say that added 100lbs. to the Van. Let's see, I still have 350lbs. I saved and I take away 100lbs. from that and I have 250lbs. . net savings.

(j) We also added reading lights, electrical wire, front wood console, rear tire carrier . . . must all total out to at least 50lbs . . . . so I reduce my 250pounds savings by 50 and my new net savings is 200 pounds.

(k) Now our regular riders are of hearty stock and probably average 20lbs. overweight to your 150lbs. standard . . . so 10 passengers being 201lbs. each overweight equals 200lbs . . . can you believe it . . . 200 plus and 200 minus and I come out to . . . ZERO.

Now that we've finished our basic math quiz we can get down to the heart of the problem. Ford is selling a Cargo/Passenger vehicle that can't possibly meet their stated weights . . . . once again simple math says: GVW is 6200 pounds 15 Passengers -2250 pounds NVW is 3950 pounds

There is no way that vehicle or any Ford Vehicle setting on your showroom floor, equipped with bench seats and ready accept 15 passengers can weigh less than 400 pounds.

So, by your own figures, you show that you are falsely representing your product, that you are endangering peoples lives and worst of all you don't give a damn. And to prove that statement, I'll take a Saturday and in your facility, take out the eight captains chairs and bases and let you weigh the Van. And so that everyone knows things are on the up and up, let's invite the President of Ford to be the official weighing judge. He certainly has a vested interest. And just in case you don't want to accept the challenge, rest assured I'll do it on my own, having everything (Illegible Word) so that TV Stations, Consumer Organizations, FTC, and NHTSA can all benefit from this information.

So, back to you Mr. Rose and this time please do your homework and get the facts straight before you respond. I want to know why a Ford Motor Company representative speced and sold our group a Van that could not possibly conform to what we requested.

A VERY UNHAPPY FORD VAN LEASEE:

WILLIAM E. MEITER Middletown Van Pool Association

Ford Motor Company

May 17, 1983

William E. Meiter Middletown Van Pool Association

Dear Mr. Meiter:

This is in response to your recent letter to Mr. Peck in which you relate the problems experienced with replacement of brake linings and pads on your 1982 Ford E-150 Van.

While the warranty which you received with the Ford E-150 Van covers defects in material and workmanship within the first 12 months or 12,000 miles, it does not cover replacement of normal maintenance items such as brake linings (friction material). There are several factors that may effect brake life; for example: individual driving habits, road conditions, stop and go traffic into and within Manhattan and optional equipment such as 10 captian chairs causing extra load. You apparently intensified the problem of load by actually carrying an overload which is indicated in the following: Your vehicle's GVW is - 6,200 lbs. After alterations, your vehicle's net weight registered as - 5,720 ibs. Allowing you - 480 lbs. to use as load; i.e.: passengers.

By transporting 10 passengers possibly totalling 1,500 lbs., you are overloading your vehicle by approximately 1,000 lbs.

We regret that our response could not be more favorable, but appreciate having had the opportunity to review this matter for you.

J. R. Rose District Manager New York District

MANHATTAN FORD, LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC. (Illegible Words) 555 WEST 57th STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10019 (201)581-7860

PRICE BOOK DATE PAGE DATE SALESMAN: SALBO

CUSTOMER: J.C. PENNY

ADDRESS

ATTENTION: W.E. MEITER 60 WALLACE ROAD, MIDDLETOWN, N.J. 07748 PHONE: 212-957-0092. MODEL: EIEO WINDOW VAN SUPER (Illeg.) 6941.- PAYLOAD PACKAGE: #2 GVM: 6200 N/C ENGINE: 302-V8 101.- TRANSMISSION: AUTOMATIC 352.- AXLES FRONT: (TRACTION LOK) REAR RATIO: 4.75 170.- TIRES: P235 75R 15XL STD.- SPARE TIRE: P235 75R 15XL 111.- AIR CONDITION DASH [] HI CAPACITY [] 1020.- ALTERNATOR: 60 AMP INCL W/AIR. - BATTERY: HD 36.- BRAKES: POWER STD BUMPER: REAR STEP. 84.- OUT CONVENIENCE GROUP: INTER WIPERS-12" O/N MIRROR-RHVANITY MIRROR 50.- COOLING SYS EXTRA [] SUPER [] 55.- DOOR SIDE: SLIDING OR HINGED N/C FUEL TANK: AUX. TOTAL CAP. 40 GALS 112.- (Illeg.) SPEED CONTROL 135.- GLASS (Illeg.): SWING OUT REAR. 40.- GLASS TINTED [] PRIVACY [] 264.- (Illeg.): COMFORT RIDE 15.- HEATER AUX [] HI OUTPUT [] 25.- INSULATION: DELUX 362.- LIGHT (Illeg.): COURTESY SWITCHES 24- LOCK GROUP: SECURITY 51.- MIRRORS: WESTERN LOW MTG. 69.- PAINT: ONE COLOR N/C PROTECTION GROUP RADIO: AM. FM. CASSETTE (4 SPEAKERS.) 224.- SEATING: QUAD CAPTS. CHAIRS. (2 ONLY) 1100.- 550 SHOCKS: HD FRONT & REAR (Illeg.) SPRING FRONT: HD REAR: HD 62.- STABILIZER BAR: FRONT 25.- STEERING: POWER 197.- (Illeg.): OUTSIDE SWING AWAY TIRE CARRIER. 117.- (Illeg.): CIGAR LIGHTER. 17.- FREIGHT 509.- DELIVERY & PREPARATION CHARGE 75.- 1981 PRICE (Illeg.) 82 ESTIMATED INCREASE 4% 500.- 12926- BILL, THE VAN PEOPLE ON LONG ISLAND WANT X 355.00- EACH INSTALLED FOR CAPTAINS CHAIRS FIGURING ANOTHER SEVEN TX 368.00-297.50 25.00- 2.972 I STILL WANT TO SHOP THIS ITEM LIGHTS 34.35 15 TOTAL 212.45 504.00 15.286

(Illegible Words)

P.S. ALL ACCESSORIES ARE FIGURED AT COST SO ANYTHING YOU THINK YOU DON'T WANT JUST DELETE.

LENNIE (Illegible Words) - 914-638-2972 3 YR. #562 MO PLUS INSURANCE. DOWN #600 + ONE MOS. PAYMENT $ 8,500 BUY BACK

MANHATTAN FORD, LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC

8-17-81

BILL,

JUST A QUICK NOTE TO TELL YOU THE FINANCE CO. APPROVED THE LEASE.

ALSO ATTACHED IS A LAY OUT. I GOT THE SEAT PEOPLE TO DROP THEIR PRICE TO $ 297.50 AND THE READING LIGHTS INSTALLED EACH SEAT $ 34.95 EACH.

I THINK WE HAVE EVERYTHING, GIVE ME A CALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Frank

THIS IS THE SEAT MOVES BACK & FORWARD & SWIVELS DOES NOT RECLINE.

MAIN CUT OFF SWITCH FOR LIGHTS INSTLD. IN DASH

8 (Illegible Word) SEATS INSTLD ON SWIVEL BASES W/SLIDE TRACKS AS SHOWN

SEAT INSTALLATION NOTE:

POSITION ALL SEATS APPROXIMATELY 4 (Illegible Word) FROM SIDE TO ALLOW FOR:

- SWIVEL OF SEATS

- STOREAGE OF BLUE CASES ON FLOOR BETWEEN SEAT AND SIDE WALL

WE WILL USE 8 OF THESE DRIVE & PASSENGER WILL BE FORD.

SPECIAL NOTE:

CENTER THIS SEAT (MOVE INTO AISLE) SO PASSENGERS CAN ENTER BEHIND SEAT AND (Illegible Words) AISLE TO THEIR SEATS

9 SINGLE AIRCRAFT LIGHT W/SEPARATE SWITCHES INSTLD OVER EACH SEAT AS SHOWN.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-1.10

DATE: 02/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Rechlicz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking several questions about the application of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to school buses.

First, you refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.1 and question which paragraph establishes the minimum safety level. Since paragraph (a) was first proposed and subsequently modified by the addition of paragraph (b), you believe that paragraph (a) defines the minimum level of safety while paragraph (b) meets or exceeds that level of safety. This reading of the standard is not completely accurate. Paragraph (a) of that section was the first part of the section to be proposed. Before the rule became effective, however, the proposal was amended to include paragraph (b). Accordingly, both paragraphs must be read together as defining the minimum mandatory safety performance requirement.

Second, you ask for our opinion of the preemption clause in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). You state that your interpretation is that no State or local government may adopt a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. An exception exists for standards applicable to vehicles purchased for the State's or the local government's own use. This is an accurate reading of the preemption clause, however, a major area of contention frequently arises around what constitutes the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard.

Third, you ask whether the Federal government, through Standard No. 217, has preempted States from regulating unobstructed openings for purposes of emergency exists. As you are aware, the standard states that the emergency exit opening must be of a certain size. Further, the standard specifies the location of one of the seats at the forward-most side of the emergency exit. These are the agency's only requirements relating to the unobstructed emergency exit opening. With respect to whether a State could regulate further in this area, it would depend upon the type of regulation the State adopted. For example, a regulation that governed the size of the opening or the location of the forwardmost seat would probably be preempted. However, a regulation that required an aisle leading to the side emergency door would not likely be preempted, since the Federal government does not regulate aisles in buses.

Your fourth question asks us to comment on whether a Wisconsin statute requires aisles in school buses. The agency does not issue interpretations of State statutes. You should contact appropriate State officials for this information.

Finally, you recite a Wisconsin definition of emergency door zone which states that it is "the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit . . . " You then ask whether there are any such zones on buses constructed with side emergency exits. The agency, as stated above, requires an unobstructed opening at each exit (S5.2.3.1). If Wisconsin defines this as a zone, then such a zone exists in buses for purposes of the Wisconsin statute.

SINCERELY,

RICHARD A. RECHLICZ

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR

December 18, 1980

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

RE: Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release File No. 80-82

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please be advised that the undersigned has been retained by and represents a corporation engaged in the manufacture of school buses throughout the United States, for the purpose of investigation certain issues that relate to standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release and the Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter MVD 17 entitled Transporation of School Children.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request a written legal opinion from your offices on the issues raised in this correspondence as they relate to standard 217 and MVD 17.

First, as I understand the legislative history of standard 217, S5.2.3.1 was first issued with only subsection (a). Later, as a response to and after opposition was voiced by certain west coast bus manufacturers using the "California window" due to rear mounted engines, NHTSA promulgated subsection (b). Thus, the present standard allows the manufacturer to choose either subsection (a) or subsection (b). Is it correct that subsection (a) established the minimum degree of safety and that subsection (b) either meets or exceeds that minimum standard?

Second, please advise as to the NHTSA position on the supremacy clause, 15USC section 1392(b). It was my belief that with respect to the directive of Congress to the NHTSA to address itself to the safety standards itemized in 15 USC 1395(i), where the NHTSA issued a safety standard thereon, the State could not adopt "any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of said vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." (State owned and used vehicles excepted).

Third, and I believe this relates to question 2, as I read Standard 217, especifically 217 S5.2.1, it is my impression that all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more "shall meet the unobstructed openings requirements by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 through S5.5". Has the federal government pre-empted the field as to what is unobstructed for the openings? For this example, please refer to the spec drawing enclosed: if the manufacturer meets the requirements of S5.4.2.1(b), can the State initiate a rule that the seating arrangement as shown in the drawing for the side door obstructs the opening? (Assume also that the seating arrangement meets federal specifications as to distance.)

Fourth, it is my belief that nowhere in the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17, is there a requirement that buses must have aisles. From your reading of that chapter alone, and I suggest that the word aisle is used only in MVD 17.13(1) and 17.25(2)(b), do you find anywhere that MVD 17 either

(1) defines aisle? or

(2) requires aisles in school buses?

Again, I request the opinion on this aspect only from your reading of the provision, not from other outside factors.

Finally, MVD 17.06(3) defines "emergency door zone" as "the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit. . ." From a reading of this definition alone, could you please advise as to whether there are any emergency door zones on a bus that is manufactured with exists meeting FMVSS 217 S5.2.3.1(b) ("California window" and side door exit).

I understand that responses to all of these issues raised in this correspondence will require a considerable amount of time by your offices. Please realize that it is important that we have a response from your offices on each question.

Accordingly, if there is any question that is not clear to you as stated, please call.

Furthermore, I would request that you acknowledge receipt of this correspondence.

Your prompt and immediate attention to this correspondence is appreciated as we are currently experiencing certain time restraints.

I thank you in advance for your consideration and courtesies. Seasons greetings to you and your family.

ENC.

cc: THOMAS BUILT BUS, INC. ATTN: BRYCE HUNT; RODDY LIGON, JR.; WILLIAM G. LADEWIG, ATTY AT LAW;

NOTE:

THE SEAT JUST FORWARD OF THE SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR CAN NOT EXTEND BEYOND LEADING VERTICAL EDGE OF DOOR OPENING.

APPLIES TO:

"S" MODELS WITH SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR AND WITHOUT REAR EMERGENCY DOOR.

ALL GAUGES TO CONFORM TO AMERICAN IRON A STEEL INSTITUTE (AISI) SPECIFICATIONS

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC. HIGH POINT, N.C.

TITLE

SEAT LOCATION - SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR FMVSS #217

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-04.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The London Coach Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. D. F. Landers President The London Coach Co., Inc. 25 Eldredge P.O. Box 1183 Mt. Clemens, MI 48043

Dear Mr. Landers:

This responds to your June 6, 1985 letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. We apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether your vehicle's "folding flip seats" are required by section @4.3 of the standard to be equipped with a restraining device. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By the way of background information, this agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section @4.3 of Standard No. 207 states:

...a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and control for releasing that restraining device. (Emphasis added.) The term "occupant seat" is defined in section S3 of Standard No. 207 as, "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." The term "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3(b) as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for the auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.... (Emphasis added.)

The issue raised by your letter is whether your folding flip seats are seats that provide a designated seating position, within the definition of 49 CFR Part 571.3(b). If a seat provides a designated seating position, it is an occupant seat under Standard No. 207 and subject to section @4.3's requirement for a restraining device. It is our opinion that your folding flip seats are "auxiliary seating accommodations" and therefore not subject to the Standard No. 207's requirement for a restraining device. This conclusion is based on the information shown on your brochure. The brochure shows that each of the flip seats normally remains folded up. When they are temporarily needed to accommodate additional passengers, they can be folded down to form a seating surface.

While folding jump seats are not subject to a number of safety requirements, including those of Standards No. 207 and 208, Occupant Crash Protection, we encourage you to ensure that the seats provide safe performance when in use. In particular, we would encourage you to provide safety belts for these seats to ensure that their occupants will have adequate crash protection.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 6, 1985

The Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter is our request for interpretive advice on our vehicle, London Taxi and London Sterling, in the area of seating. Brochures are enclosed for your information.

Regulation @4.3 of 49CFR 571.207 requires a self-locking device on all hinged or folding occupant seats. We have gone to a great deal of trouble and research in an effort to locate a suitable self-locking device without success.

Meanwhile, we have noted many vehicles, such as, limousines, ambulances, and fire trucks with folding temporary jump seats without self-locking devices. We further note that in 49CFR 571.3 under the definition of the term, designated seating position, "temporary or folding jump seats" are not regarded as "designated seating positions".

We interpret this latter definition to mean our vehicle folding flip seats do not require self-locking devices. Would you please advise us if our interpretation is correct.

Yours very truly,

D.F. Landers President

DFL/ka

cc: J. Greenebaum A. Turner

enclosure

ID: nht94-3.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1994

FROM: Roger Matoba

TO: Patricia Breslin -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Shoulder Belts for Passenger Vans

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-28-94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT (JOHN WOMACK) TO ROGER MATOBA (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: This letter is a request to review the requirement for shoulder belts for "outboard passengers" on passenger van vehicles. Current vehicle manufacturer's interpretation of Rule FMVSS-208 calls for the installation of shoulder type seatbelts on righthand and lefthand outboard passenger seating positions. This creates a potential safety hazard on benchseat passenger van vehicles with side aisle access to rear seating locations. Manufacturers are installing shoulder type seat belts for passengers locate d on the righthand side of the vehicle. When these shoulder type belts are latched into position, they cross the side passenger aisle way, making it impossible for passengers in rear seating locations to exit or enter a vehicle. Should an emergency situ ation occur, rear seat passengers will be unable to quickly and safely evacuate a vehicle. Likewise, emergency personnel will be unable to quickly enter the rear portion of the vehicle to render aid.

The 1992 model year van passenger vehicles are equipped with standard lapbelts for rightside passengers next to the aisle, and shoulder belts for the leftside outboard passengers next to the window. In 1993, this was changed to comply with FMVSS-208 for all "outboard passenger" seating positions to be equipped with shoulder type belts. This has resulted in the situation described above where rear seat passengers cannot exit past middle seat passengers who have their outboard shoulder seatbelts latched into place.

I propose that this rule be changed, or clarified, to eliminate the requirement for shoulder type belts on outboard seat positions when the seat position is located next to a side aisle way. Right side aisles are typically 12-16 inches wide from the veh icle wall to the seat. Passengers seated on the righthand side of the vehicle in this seat position are not actually "outboard passengers" since there is an aisle space between them and the vehicle wall. Attached is an illustration showing typical seat ing arrangements in passenger vans with rightside aisle ways. Please note that all passenger seats next to the right side aisle have shoulder type belts that cross the aisle. This arrangement of shoulder type belts is a safety hazard because they block the only reasonable emergency path in the vehicle.

As an alternative solution to keeping the current safety rule in place as written, center aisles with split bench seats in van passenger vehicles could be mandated. This would allow for shoulder type belts in outboard seat positions and not hinder emerg ency egress from the vehicle through the center aisle.

I purchased a 1992 model year passenger van instead of a 1993 model year for the very reasons I've described here. I felt the shoulder belt requirement for 1993, and 1994, was not only inconvenient for passengers, but potentially dangerous.

Enclosure

WAGON SEATING ARRANGEMENTS (TEXT AND GRAPHICS OMITTED)

ID: 002661cmc

Ms. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs
Installation Management Agency
North East Region Office, Logistics Division
Transportation Branch
SFIM-NE-LD-T, Bldg 5A, Rm 204
Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1048

Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs:

This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply.

While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard[.]

Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below.

FMVSS No. 207

FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard.

FMVSS No. 208

Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210.

If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position.

FMVSS No. 209

FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard.

FMVSS No. 210

FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard.

FMVSS No. 225

If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle.

I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.6/20/03





---

[1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.