ID: nht91-3.22

DATE: April 16, 1991

FROM: Keith Salsman -- Independent Inventor

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsul, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert York

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Keith Salsman (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am an independent inventor seeking a Letter of Interpretation concerning a type of brake light which I have spent several years working on and currently have patent pending status. During that time I have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, inventor contact for NHTSA, and more recently Mr. Dick Stromboten who replaced him due to his retirement. I have also talked briefly with Kevin Cavey.

The brake light device, which I call the Braking Intensity Array, is a high mount brake light designed to effectively alert a following car as to the braking status of the forward car. The light is an array of lights that light up first in the center, exactly as the current high mount brake lights, in response to any pressure on the brake pedal. However, if any actual braking occurs then the lights on either side of the center lights will respond appropriately with the adjacent lights lighting under mild braking force, the lights next to them under a stronger braking force, the next lights under an even stronger braking force, and the outer most lights lighting only under a very strong braking force such as emergency braking. Thus the light lights in both directions from the center. Research has indicated that this is very easily interpreted by someone completely unfamiliar with the device.

During the developmental process I have tried to insure absolute compliance with any rule, regulation, or past safety concern. The center lights of the array are wired directly to the current brake light switch and will comply with the regulations on high mount brake lights in the Code of Federal Regulations 571 section 108. The rest of the array is controlled by a separate device which is also connected to the brake switch and will not operate independently. There are fail safe measures to insure that the light will always operate the same regardless of vehicle incline or speed. In addition, as per Dr. Clark's suggestions, the light's response time to various braking forces will be very close to 3 milliseconds which is quick enough to give the light "Real Value" and not just "Perceived Value".

In the past year I have approached several companies with my idea. Most are interested but unwilling to pursue anything because of what they called "too much government involvement" to overcome. Recently NAPA Auto Parts has expressed a keen interest, as well as TRUCK-LITE. Mr. Robert York of TRUCK-LITE has sent me an honest non-disclosure agreement and has given a favorable response. He told me that he will send a Request for a Letter of Interpretation as well. However, since he has signed a non-disclosure it is difficult for him to be specific. Therefore, I have submitted this request in addition to his.

The General Estimates System of the Department of Transportation has on record in 1988 a total of 6,875,500 Police Reported Roadway Accidents. A total of 1,622,000 were reported as Rear End Collisions. Many more of these roadway accidents could be of a secondary nature to a Rear End Collision, for example, a vehicle swerved to avoid a rear end collision and struck another object. Approximately 500,000 of the Rear End Collisions involved minor or moderate injury and 1,962 involved fatalities. The most common injury involved spinal trauma or whiplash. This injury usually persists long after the accident. High-mount headrests are installed as a safety feature now to avoid this.

A great majority of these Rear End Collisions occurred in our cities during periods of heavy traffic causing traffic jams and lost working hours. As the traffic continues to increase in the cities and urban areas, we can expect the number of such rear end collisions to increase substantially.

The following articles of the Department of Transportation Code of Federal Regulations on lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment are concerned with high-mount brake lights. In S2, article 571.08, it states:

Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents, by providing adequate illumination of the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility.

In S5.1.1.27 of the same article, it states:

Each passenger car manufacture on or after September 1,1985, shall be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp which: a) Shall have an effective projected luminous area not less than 4 1/2 square inches.

b) Shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

c) Shall have a the minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10.

d) Need not meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.1.6 Moisture, 3.1.7 Dust Test and 3.1.8 Corrosion Test of SAE Recommended Practice J186a if it is mounted inside the vehicle. e) Shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools.

In S5.3.1.8: Each high-mounted stop lamp shall be mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the

rear. The lamp may be mounted at any position on the centerline, including the glazing. If the lamp is mounted inside the vehicle, means shall be provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars.

In S5.4.1:

Two or more lamps, reflective devices or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met, except that no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp and no high-mounted stop shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

In S5.5.4:

The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stop lamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes.

In S5.5.10:

b) High-mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1986, may flash when the hazard warning system is activated.

These are all references to high-mounted brake lights in the Code of Federal Regulations.

I respectfully submit that my Braking Intensity Array can be manufactured according to the regulations on high-mounted brake lights, and if so manufactured would not violate any of those rules or regulations nor would it deviate from the spirit, intent, or purpose of the Federal Code of Regulations.

In conclusion the brake light described above should help to reduce rear end collisions by alerting the car behind as to the braking condition of the vehicle. Also in congested areas of traffic it will help to keep traffic flowing more smoothly. This is due to the overreaction of many drivers to the brake lights of the car ahead. In many cases a driver may rest his foot on the brake with no braking pressure, however the car following sees the brake light come on and applies some braking force. The next car applies even more force, and so on until traffic is forced to stop. As traffic continues to increase this problem will become greater. This has been recognized and there has been some work done to install computers in cars to alert the computer in the following car as to the braking condition. Why not give the driver the information first?

ID: nht87-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: L. M. Short -- Chief, Enforcement Services Division, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

L.M. Short, Chief Enforcement Services Division Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento, CA 95804

This responds to your letter to our office concerning our certification requirements for manufacturers of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

According to your letter, California's school bus regulations require vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law to be certified as "school buses" under Federal law. Vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law include multipurpose pa ssenger vehicles (MPV's) used to carry two or more handicapped pupils confined to wheelchairs. Consequently, under California's school bus regulations, an MPV cannot be used to carry handicapped students unless it is certified as meeting our school bus s afety standards. Because manufacturers have informed you that NHTSA prohibits them from certifying an MPV as a school bus, you request that we remove this restriction by permitting the school bus certification for MPV's.

Your understanding is correct that our regulations prohibit MPV's to be certified as "school buses." Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations, manufacturers classify their new motor vehicles in accordance with the def initions we issued for our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571.31 and certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Under the definitions of Part 571.3, the issue of seating capacity makes the s chool bus and MPV definitions mutually exclusive. The passenger seating capacity of an MPV must be 9 or less, while that of a school bus must be 10 or more. A manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a "school bus" in compliance with Federal school bus s afety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category. Adopting your suggestion that we permit some MPV's to be certified as School buses could not be accomplished without changing either our "School bus" definition, our regulations for certifying vehicles, or the application of our school bus safety standards. As explained below, we must decline your implicit request to make these changes because of a statutory restriction and because we believe their adoption is n ot warranted by a safety need.

We are precluded from adopting the suggestion that we expand our school bus definition to include some MPV' s because our" school bus" definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. In the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 , Congress added a "school bus" definition to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is based on the design and intended use of a "bus." Congress directed that upgraded school bus safety requirements be applied to buses that carry more t han 10 passengers and that are determined by NHTSA likely to be significantly used for the purpose of school transportation.

Your second implicit suggestion is that we change our certification regulations to permit manufacturers to certify a vehicle as both an "MPV" and a "school bus." Such a change would not be practical. A manufacturer's certification of a vehicle is a decla ration that the vehicle is manufactured to comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Since our performance requirements for MPV's are not identical to those for school buses, an MPV cannot be manufactured to m eet the standards applicable to both vehicle types.

The third suggestion implicit in your letter is that a dual certification can be effectuated by extending the application of our school bus safety standards to some MPV's. We are not aware of any data suggesting a safety reel for such a change. MPV's alr eady have their own safety standards to ensure adequate levels of safety performance for those vehicles. Because of those standards, we do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to transport school children. Further, we do not believe the change you suggest is n ecessary to address the issue raised in your letter. Federal law does not prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily manufacturing MPV's to meet school bus standards on aspects of performance that do not conflict with MPV standards, such as emergency exits and joint strength. California may thus specify performance standards now applicable to school buses for MPV's used to transport handicapped children, provided that the MPV's can continue to comply with MPV standards. Of course, the vehicles would still be certified only as MPV'S.

In your letter, you mentioned that you examined the definitions set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles. As you know, Standard No. 17 was issued under the Highway Safety Act as a standard for State highway safety programs. Since the "standard" consists of our recommendations for the operation of school vehicles, the Type I and Type II School Vehicle definitions found in Standard No. 17 are relevant for determining the o perational recommendations applicable to different school vehicles. Those definitions do not, however, change the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a school bus or the Act's requirements for a manufacturer to certify school buses to all applicable Feder al motor vehicle safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

The California Highway Patrol has been informed by a school bus manufacturer that a new vehicle originally designed to accommodate 12 seating positions but reduced to a seating capacity of ten or less must be certified as a multipurpose vehicle in accord ance with Federal standards. Mr. George Shifflet of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) verified this and added that NHTSA does not recognize a vehicle with seating for 10 or less persons as a school bus.

The school bus definition found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571, Section 3. does not specify a minimum number of students to be transported.

Highway Safety Program Manual No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. United States Department of Transportation, NHTSA was searched for relevant material. This document. which is a guide for all states to use in developing pupil transportation programs, st ates that a "Type II school vehicle -- is any motor vehicle used to carry 16 or less pupils to or from school. The minimum number of pupils is not specified and we note that the word "vehicle" is used rather than "bus".

The California school bus definition is identical to the NHTSA definition of a bus in that both specify a vehicle designed for "more than 10 persons" However. California Vehicle Code Section 545 (copy enclosed) also provides that a motor vehicle that tra nsports two or more handicapped pupils confined to a wheelchair is a school bus. Many of these special buses will transport some pupils "confined to wheelchairs and some ambulatory pupils for a total of less than 10. Even though this seating configuratio n does not meet the definition of a bus, we feel that the school pupils being transported should always be provided with all the safety features provided by Federal and State Law for school buses. Chief Counsel $5 September 16, 1986

There are school bus manufacturers that are willing to certify that a motor vehicle with a seating capacity for 10 or less meets school bus standards but they are prohibited from this certification due to the requirements of Title 49, CFR. Some school bu s operators have been unable to purchase small four-wheel-drive vehicles for use as school buses to operate in snow and rough terrain. They have been forced to purchase larger four-wheel-drive buses in order to obtain the school bus certification label. A smaller four-wheel-drive vehicle may be more appropriate in rural areas under certain driving conditions.

In view of the foregoing information, we respectfully request that the merits of this case be studied and that a decision be made to permit a bus manufacturer to certify a vehicle designed to seat 10 persons or less as a school bus. Perhaps a new vehicle definition or classification is needed, such as "special school bus". If this request is granted, we feel it would be a positive step to further ensure the safe transportation of school pupils. Very truly yours,

L. M. SHORT, Chief Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

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: 07-000862 3-row CAFE interp (final plus SW edits)--17 Jan 08 rls

ID: nht93-8.34

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Plath -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Richard L. Plath to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9327)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office on trailer conspicuity. You ask for confirmation of several points.

Initially, we would like to comment as follows on the 4-point procedure you have outlined:

"1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer."

This is correct. Because the chassis is designed for carrying property and for being towed by a motor vehicle, it is a "trailer" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

"2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 percent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side.

This is correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108, retroreflective tape "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered...."

"3) In the case of a 48 foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules."

This is partially correct. Under S.7.1.4.2(a), a minimum of 24 feet of reflective material must be applied to the side of a 48-foot trailer. However, S5.7.1.3(a) requires the colors to be red and white, not red and silver. Further, under S5.7.1.3(b) , the permissible lengths of the sheeting are expressed as "each white or red segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm." We note that 450 mm is slightly less than 18 inches.

Standard No. 108 does not specify any maximum permissible "void... between modules." Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), the spaces are to be distributed "as evenly as practicable."

"4) *** when the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis.***"

This is incorrect. Compliance by an unloaded container chassis with the conspicuity requirements is determined as if the container load were in place. S7.5.1.4.2(a) states that "at the location chosen (for conspicuity treatment), the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo." Because the container obscures the gooseneck, the conspicuity treatment mandated by Standard No. 108 cannot identify the extreme front portion of the chassis. Its front termination point will be behind the gooseneck, at a point where it is not obscured by the Container. You have correctly stated this with respect to a loaded chassis but it applies to the unloaded chassis as manufactured:

"... the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) (shall) be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further we understand that the 50 percent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck."

You conclude that a gooseneck chassis traveling without its container would be in violation of Standard No. 108 if its gooseneck were not marked "creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four feet is allowable." You also ask "(i)s there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis?"

As explained previously, Standard No. 108 does not require marking of the gooseneck of a container chassis, and there is ho requirement limiting the spacing between segments of retroreflective material. We believe that the desired conspicuity of the trailer will be maintained by requiring the additional 4 feet of sheeting on the chassis behind the gooseneck when the gooseneck itself will be obscured with the container in place. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a manufacturer from applying conspicuity treatment to the 8-foot gooseneck of a 48 foot trailer if it wishes to do so; however, the manufacturer is still required to apply not less than 24 feet of material in the 40-foot section behind the gooseneck.

We shall be pleased to answer the following four questions you have also raised:

"1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a 48 foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?"

You will have to apply 24 feet of stripping on the portion of a 48-foot chassis that lies behind the gooseneck, but you are not required to mark the gooseneck.

"2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?"

As explained previously, the 24 feet of material is to be applied behind the gooseneck. If you wish to apply evenly spaced conspicuity treatment that includes the gooseneck, you may do so, as long as at least 24 feet of it is behind the gooseneck.

"3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 percent coverage?"

Yes, a tire is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of S5.7.1.4.2(a) forbidding the obscuring of conspicuity treatment. No, you may not deduct the length of the area obscured by the tire from the 50 per cent coverage. You must include it in the 50 per cent computation. Thus, if a tire would obscure 3 feet of conspicuity material on the side of a 48 foot gooseneck trailer, the manufacturer must apply 24 feet of material in the 37 feet that is behind the gooseneck which is not obscured. We note in passing that the prints submitted for our review by J.Z. Peepas of Selecto-Flash depict conspicuity treatment that is above the top of the tire and apparently not obscured by it.

"4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?"

You are not required to place conspicuity treatment on the extendable portion of the chassis provided that not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered when the conspicuity treatment is placed elsewhere. In the event that conspicuity treatment is placed on the extendable portion and is damaged when the trailer is in use, the operator will not be subject to any penalties of this agency. Federal regulations governing the use of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce are issued by another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA requires that vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle (49 CFR 393.11). Therefore, maintenance of the conspicuity treatment on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, is required by the FHWA. If you wish to write FHWA on this topic, you may address James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590.

The individual states may have regulations in this area as well. We are unable to advise you on State requirements, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht74-1.12

DATE: 06/11/74

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

TO: Amerace Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, with questions as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to your operations, and its relationship to a contract provision requested by General Motors (GM) requiring that you certify compliance of the hoses you deliver to it.

Your primary responsibility under the Act is to manufacture brake hoses that conform to 49 CFR @ 571.106, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. On and after September 1, 1974, pursuant to S5.2, Labeling, of that standard, each hydraulic brake hose, end fitting, and assembly shall be marked with "The symbol DOT, constituting a certification" by the hose manufacturer, fitting manufacturer, and hose assembler that each item "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." Since the symbol is a permanent mark on the product, certification will be furnished to anyone through whose hands it passes, whether or not it is required by @ 114 of the Act. In our view, the symbol DOT is also a "certificate" within the meaning of @ 108(b)(2) since it is the manufacturer's representation of compliance upon which other persons may rely. The contract language suggested by GM is therefore not something required by the Act.

I note however, that the amendment requested by GM is to take effect July 1, 1974, two months before you are legally required to use the DOT mark. With respect to your obligations in the interim: Under @ 114 and the certification notice published November 4, 1967, (32 F.R. 15444) an equipment manufacturer must certify conformity to "dealers" and "distributors" by a label or tag on the item itself or on the container in which it is shipped. Obviously this includes dealers and distributors to whom you sell directly.

We also consider that the manufacturer of a vehicle, such as GM, into which a hose is incorporated is a distributor of brake hoses to whom @ 114 certification must be provided. Any further requirements specified by GM in your contract would be, of course, purely a matter of contract law.

Because you are required to manufacture hoses to conform to Standard No. 106 you are legally responsible for any violation directly attributable to the manufacturing process, irrespective of any certification provided GM. The question whether that certificate relieves GM of liability cannot be answered in the abstract. As of January 1, 1975, Standard No. 106 will also apply to motor vehicles, and we do not interpret @ 108(b)(2) in this context as relieving a vehicle manufacturer of his obligation to exercise due care. Certainly, at a minimum, GM would be liable for violations attributable to installation.

You have also asked for guidance on the recall provisions of @ 111 and (Illegible Word) notification provisions of @ 113. The repurchase provisions of @ 111 come into effect upon a determination by either NHTSA or a manufacturer that there exists either a safety-related defect or a nonconformance. This section is not enforced directly by NHTSA, but affords redress to distributors and dealers in the event a manufacturer refuses to repurchase substandard vehicles or equipment items. Since a @ 108(b)(2) certificate covers only compliance and is not a guarantee of freedom from safety-related defects, it cannot have been intended "to pass the expense of recall from GM" to you when @ 111 is invoked. The @ 108(b)(2) certificate was intended only to provide protection to certificate holders from civil penalty liabilities. Liability for expenses under @ 111 or @ 113 is a contract matter between GM and you.

As for @ 113, your understanding of Mr. Vinson's remarks is essentially correct. There is a direct notification obligation under @ 113(a) only upon manufacturers of vehicles and tires. But a @ 113(e) proceeding can involve any motor vehicle equipment manufacturer as a party, who could be ordered to proceed with a @ 113(a) notification campaign upon a finding that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance exists. A brake hose manufacturer upon such a finding would be required to provide notification to aftermarket purchasers. If the component is used as original vehicle equipment the vehicle manufacturer would normally also be a party to a @ 113(e) proceeding and required to furnish notification to vehicle purchasers.

SINCERELY,

AMERACE CORPORATION,

May 17, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to a conversation with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office, I am requesting a written opinion relating to certain questions I have concerning the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to our operations.

Our Swan Hose Division manufactures brake hose for, among others, the Chevrolet Motor Division of GM. We have been asked by Chevrolet to certify that the act of making each shipment pursuant to our contract constitutes certification as referred to in Section 108(B)(2) the Act (copy of certification enclosed).

Specifically, I would like to know what is our general responsibility under the Act as a manufacturer of brake hose? Does this request for certification add anything to what we are already obligated to do by the Act? I note that Section 114 apparently requires us to certify to distributors and dealers but not to manufacturers, such as GM. Do we have to certify if we sell to dealers or distributors directly?

Section 109 of the Act provides for civil penalties in situations where there is a violation. Does our certification to Chevrolet, in effect, pass the responsibility for violation on to us directly and insulate Chevrolet? Is is likely that the Administration would proceed against us directly in the case of a defect whether or not we have given the Section 108(P)(2) certification?

There are provisions in Section 111 of the Act for the recall of vehicles prior to the sale by a distributor or dealer. Is the Section 108 certification intended to pass the expense of recall from GM to us? Mr. Vinson advise me that recall is otherwise never mandatory. Can I assume that since recall is not mandatory the liability and expense for recall is a matter of agreement between Chevrolet and us and is unaffected by the Section 108 certification?

Mr. Vinson indicated that in the case of a safety-related defect the (Illegible Word) pursuant to Section 113(A) would be on the vehicle manufacturer to notify with no notification obligation on the hose manufacturer. However, in the event Chevrolet refused to recognize the safety defect, then a Section 113(E), Administrative Proceeding, might be brought against Chevrolet in which we would then be a party to the proceeding. Is there ever a situation where we have to notify dealers of a defect? Does the Section 108 certification pass the expense of notification from GM to us?

I wish to thank you, Mr. Vinson, and the other members of your staff who have been extremely helpful in assisting us in interpreting the Act.

I await your office's reply on the above questions and comments.

J. C. Vecchio Assistant Counsel

Enclosure

cc: N. P. Beveridge

AMERIACE CORPORATION SHAN HOSE DIVISION (Illegible Word) W SQUARE LK RD POB 249 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH. 48013

CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.: 38550

Amendment Effective Date: 7/1/74

Date: 4/3/74

(Illegible Words) Date: 6/30/75

The (Illegible Word) contract is hereby amended as follows: FOB DUNS-017560988

Contract No. CO-23064

PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONTRACT:

"BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT OR PURCHASE ORDER, IT IS AGREED THAT THE ACT OF MAKING EACH SHIPMENT PURSUANT THERETO CONSTITUTES CERTIFICATION, AS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 108 (B) (2) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, THAT EACH ITEM IN SUCH SHIPMENT CONFORMS WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD." ALL SHIPPING CONTAINERS (INDIVIDUAL OR BULK), EXCEPT (Illegible Word) TIRES AND GLAZING MATERIALS (GLASS), PROVIDED THE ARTICLES INDIVIDUALLY HEAR THE CERTIFICATION SYMBOL SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDING: - CONFORMS TO APPLICABLE U. S. FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS -

THE PARTS IN THIS CONTRACT IDENTIFIED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) MUST BE PRODUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED."

BUYER 03

Reason for Change: ADDING CLAUSES TO CONTRACT

Accepted:

AMERCE CORPORATION SWAN HOSE DIVISION

CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION General Motors Corporation Central Office

ID: 9327

Mr. Richard L. Plath
Selecto-Flash, Inc.
P.O. Box 879
Orange, NJ 07051

Dear Mr. Plath:

This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office on trailer conspicuity. You ask for confirmation of several points.

Initially, we would like to comment as follows on the 4-point procedure you have outlined:

"1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer."

This is correct. Because the chassis is designed for carrying property and for being towed by a motor vehicle, it is a "trailer" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

"2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 percent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side."

This is correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108, retroreflective tape "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered . . . ."

"3) In the case of a 48 foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules."

This is partially correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), a minimum of 24 feet of reflective material must be applied to the side of a 48-foot trailer. However, S5.7.1.3(a) requires the colors to be red and white, not red and silver. Further, under S5.7.1.3(b), the permissible lengths of the sheeting are expressed as "each white or red segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm." We note that 450 mm is slightly less than 18 inches. Finally, Standard No. 108 does not specify any maximum permissible "void . . . between modules." Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), the spaces are to be distributed "as evenly as practicable."

"4) * * * When the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis. * * *"

This is incorrect. Compliance by an unloaded container chassis with the conspicuity requirements is determined as if the container load were in place. S7.5.1.4.2(a) states that "at the location chosen [for conspicuity treatment], the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo." Because the container obscures the gooseneck, the conspicuity treatment mandated by Standard No. 108 cannot identify the extreme front portion of the chassis. Its front termination point will be behind the gooseneck, at a point where it is not obscured by the container. You have correctly stated this with respect to a loaded chassis but it applies to the unloaded chassis as manufactured:

". . . the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) [shall] be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further we understand that the 50 percent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck."

You conclude that a gooseneck chassis traveling without its container would be in violation of Standard No. 108 if its gooseneck were not marked "creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four feet is allowable." You also ask "[i]s there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis?"

As explained previously, Standard No. 108 does not require marking of the gooseneck of a container chassis, and there is no requirement limiting the spacing between segments of retroreflective material. We believe that the desired conspicuity of the trailer will be maintained by requiring the additional 4 feet of sheeting on the chassis behind the gooseneck when the gooseneck itself will be obscured with the container in place. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a manufacturer from applying conspicuity treatment to the 8-foot gooseneck of a 48 foot trailer if it wishes to do so; however, the manufacturer is still required to apply not less than 24 feet of material in the 40-foot section behind the gooseneck.

We shall be pleased to answer the following four questions you have also raised:

"1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a 48 foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?"

You will have to apply 24 feet of stripping on the portion of a 48-foot chassis that lies behind the gooseneck, but you are not required to mark the gooseneck.

"2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?"

As explained previously, the 24 feet of material is to be applied behind the gooseneck. If you wish to apply evenly spaced conspicuity treatment that includes the gooseneck, you may do so, as long as at least 24 feet of it is behind the gooseneck.

"3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 percent coverage?"

Yes, a tire is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of S5.7.1.4.2(a) forbidding the obscuring of conspicuity treatment. No, you may not deduct the length of the area obscured by the tire from the 50 per cent coverage. You must include it in the 50 per cent computation. Thus, if a tire would obscure 3 feet of conspicuity material on the side of a 48 foot gooseneck trailer, the manufacturer must apply 24 feet of material in the 37 feet that is behind the gooseneck which is not obscured. We note in passing that the prints submitted for our review by J.Z. Peepas of Selecto-Flash depict conspicuity treatment that is above the top of the tire and apparently not obscured by it.

"4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?"

You are not required to place conspicuity treatment on the extendable portion of the chassis provided that not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered when the conspicuity treatment is placed elsewhere. In the event that conspicuity treatment is placed on the extendable portion and is damaged when the trailer is in use, the operator will not be subject to any penalties of this agency. Federal regulations governing the use of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce are issued by another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA requires that vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle (49 CFR 393.11). Therefore, maintenance of the conspicuity treatment on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, is required by the FHWA. If you wish to write FHWA on this topic, you may address James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590.

The individual states may have regulations in this area as well. We are unable to advise you on State requirements, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/30/93

ID: WarningLabel-GF

Mr. Gerald Plante
Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America, Inc.
PO Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your e-mail of December 19, 2002, concerning certain labeling requirements found in S4.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). Specifically you ask what constitutes the "message area" in S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii) and S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii) and the corresponding Figures 8 and 9. Since your correspondence was received, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has added an additional label that is depicted in Figure 11. [1] The new figure mirrors Figure 8 in all respects except for the addition of a new information bullet, and the two labels will be considered together.

S4.5.1(b)(2), S4.5.1(c), S4.5.1(e)(2) detail the warning label requirements for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The required sun visor warning label must conform in content with the label depicted in Figure 8 or Figure 11 of the standard and must also comply with the formatting requirements specified in S4.5.1(b)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(2)(iv). [2] S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii) requires that the message area within the warning label be no less than 30 cm². S4.5.1(b)(2)(iii) contains a separate requirement that the pictogram be no less than 30 mm (1.2 in) in length. For the removable dashboard label depicted in Figure 9, the message area within the warning label must be no less than 30 cm² (S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii)). Figures 8 and 11 do not have a clear demarcation between the text area and the pictogram. Further, part of the required text in Figures 8 and 11, "even with advanced air bags," is located directly above the pictogram.

In your correspondence you offer four possible interpretations of the term "message area" for Figures 8 and 11 and three possible interpretations of the term for Figure 9.

For Figures 8 and 11 the possible options are as follows:
1) the entire label is the message area;
2) all of the label other than the yellow heading area is the message area;
3) all of the label other than the yellow heading area and the pictogram is the message area; or
4) only the portion of the label with bulleted information is the message area.

For Figure 9 the possible options are as follows:
1) the entire label is the message area;
2) all of the label other than the yellow heading area is the message area; or
3) all of the label other than the yellow heading area and the phrase "even with advanced air bags" is the message area.

The message area described in S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii) refers to the text of the label and the introductory statement of "even with advanced air bags," located above the text and the pictogram, but not to the pictogram. We construe the statement "even with advanced air bags" as a part of the message area because it is not shaded yellow and thus is not part of the heading area. The message area for Figure 9 is all of the label other than the yellow header.

Figures 8, 9, and 11 are based on the sun visor air bag labels depicted in Figures 6a, 6b, and 7 of the standard, which were adopted in 1996. Figures 6a and 6b contain a vertical line separating the message area and the pictogram, although the requirement for these lines is not contained within the regulatory text. Figure 7 depicts a temporary dashboard label with no pictogram. In adopting the new label requirements, NHTSA specified separate dimensions for the message area and the pictogram area. In the preamble to the 1996 Final Rule introducing new label requirements, NHTSA stated that "[t]he agency expects that manufacturers will ensure the English text of each labels fills the 30 cm² area." See 61 Fed. Reg. 60206 at 60210, (Nov. 27, 1996). This statement demonstrates NHTSA's intent that the 30 cm² message area contain only text.

When NHTSA published the advanced air bag final rule on May 12, 2000, it adopted the new Figures 8 and 9 with the same minimum message area and pictogram dimensions as the earlier adopted figures. The agency had no intention of reducing the size of the required warning labels. If the pictogram were considered part of the message area in Figures 8 and 11, the effect would be a significant reduction in the minimum size requirements for the English text of the label. Such a reduction in size was not contemplated by NHTSA.

In order to clarify how to measure the message area, we are providing an explanation of the following parameters. The "message area" consists of the total label area minus the yellow heading area and the pictogram. The pictogram area is enclosed on the left side and bottom by the edge of the label. The right side of the pictogram is defined by a vertical line midway between the rightmost edge of the pictogram and the left most edge of the text, including any bullets. The top edge of the pictogram area is defined by a horizontal line midway between the uppermost edge of the pictogram and the lowermost edge of the text (see Figure 1).

S4.5.1(e)(2)(ii) requires that a message area within the Figure 9 warning label be no less than 30 cm². Unlike the aforementioned warning label specified in S4.5.1(b) and Figures 8 and 11, the S4.5.1(e) warning label does not have a pictogram. Rather, it contains only a yellow heading area and a message area. As with Figures 8 and 11, the statement "even with advanced air bags" is a part of the message area because it is not shaded yellow and thus is not part of the heading area. Accordingly, the message area comprises the entire lower part of label below the heading area shaded in yellow (see Figure 2).

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:208
d.5/6/03





Figure 1. "message area" is represented by broken lines



• NOTE: the above diagram is not to scale and does not include the required pictogram and shading





Figure 2. "message area" is represented by broken lines




• NOTE: the above diagram is not to scale and does not include the required shading





---

[1] See 68 FR 504, January 6, 2003, NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-02-14165.

[2] Figure 11 will become the mandatory label on all vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements on or after September 1, 2003. Prior to that date, vehicle manufacturers may use either Figure 8 or Figure 11 for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements.

ID: 1691y

The Honorable Howard Wolpe
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

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 administering 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 calculating 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 for 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 the 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 49 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 the 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 position 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 seat 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 (for 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 widely 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 seating positions. However, this agency agrees 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 compartmentalization. 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 adult 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 school 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) characteristics 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. FMVSS 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,

Diane K. Steed /ref:VSA#222 d:2/23/89

ID: 1982-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 2, 1982

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy President, Automotive Research and Certification Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. McEnvoy:

This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1981, appealing our denial of your request to import five different German specification 1982 BMW passenger cars under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). This provision allows vehicles not meeting the Federal safety and bumper standards to be imported for test purposes for a limited time without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You have asked us to reconsider our original decision or alternatively to allow the importation of two of the five vehicles. You have also agreed to perform all safety compliance work within 30 days of receipt of the five test vehicles, allowing you to carry out your test programs for developing complying emissions and bumper systems.

Upon review of your petition, the agency is agreeable to allowing you to import a total of five vehicles under the provision of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), without insisting upon immediate compliance with the bumper requirements, provided that you will agree in writing that the vehicles will be brought into compliance with then existing bumper requirements if they are sold to third parties. This will allow you a maximum of 120 days to bring the vehicles into compliance with safety requirements.

The bumper standard is primarily a property damage standard, rather than a safety standard, and the Administrator has the authority to waive it completely for vehicles imported into the United States. Although this authority has not been exercised or implemented in regulations, the temporary waiver which may be provided you is consistent with the intent of Congress, and allows both you and the agency to accomplish their goals. As a practical matter, the bumper standard may be amended in the near future to prescribe a more cost-effective level of performance and in that event your task of conforming the vehicles might be less difficult; we would not insist on conformance with the bumper standard in effect when the BMW's were manufactured.

I hope that this proposed solution is satisfactory to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1981, denying our request for permission to import five different German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

Your conclusion that "the purpose of your testing is to encourage the eventual importation of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to meet Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements" is in error. The purpose of our research, development, and testing is to insure that the motor vehicles which are imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x) are brought into full compliance with Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements and will remain in compliance with these requirements. It is felt that this purpose is indeed consistent with the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as well as that of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It is unlikely that our research, development and testing program will have any effect on the number of motor vehicles imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x). Since our proposed emission control system will be somewhat more expensive than those systems currently being used to enable non-certified imported automobiles to pass Federal emissions tests, will not become any easier or less expensive to import a non-certified motor vehicle. Similarly, if It was deemed feasible to modify the European bumper systems to comply with Federal bumper requirements (49 CFR Part 581), these modifications would most likely be more expensive than simply exchanging the European bumpers for U.S. style bumpers.

Your suggestion that we complete the necessary safety modifications before conducting our test program would, in effect, prevent us from carrying out that part of the program having to do with the bumper modifications. This is due to the fact that we must test different types of bumper support structures and shock absorbing units with the European bumpers in place. With the U.S. style bumpers installed, this would be impossible. We would, however, be agreeable to performing all of the safety related modifications, except for the addition of the U.S. style safety bumpers, upon receipt of the test vehicles. We expect that this work could be completed within 30 days of receipt of the test vehicles. This would allow us to carry out our test program while at the same time complying with all Federal safety requirements except the bumper standard.

We would also be agreeable to importing only two of the German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii), at this time. This would allow us to get our testing program underway and to demonstrate to the NHTSA that we truly are engaged in a research, development, and testing program. Once this had been done, we would then apply for permission to import the three remaining test vehicles.

Although our testing program will require some operation of the test vehicles on public highways, this operation will be minimal. We anticipate that each test vehicle will be driven not more than 3,000 miles for the duration of the test. These vehicles will be operated for testing purposes only, and will not be used for general transportation. Such limited operation certainly will not represent a safety or health hazard.

As you can see, we are agreeable to almost any conditions which will allow us to get this testing program underway. We therefore request that you reconsider our original request of October 19, 1981, for permission to import five motor vehicles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). As an alternative, we request that permission be granted for the importation of at least two of the five test vehicles listed in our letter of October 19, 1981, under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). The test vehicles which we would want to import first are the BMW 323i and the BMW 635i.

Attached is a copy of the testing exemption granted by the EPA. Your prompt attention to our request would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. McEvoy President

RPM:smm

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson

Enclosures

November 25, 1981

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy, President Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, Massachusetts 01923

Dear Mr. McEvoy:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1981, in which you requested a testing exemption to cover five (5) light-duty vehicles. The purpose of the test program is to develop a closed-loop emission system for use on BMW vehicles.

A testing exemption is hereby granted, subject to the terms and conditions of the enclosed Memorandum of Exemption. If Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. elects to accept the exemption, please notify this office by returning a signed copy of the Memorandum to this office within thirty days.

Very truly yours,

Timothy Fields, Jr., Chief Manufacturers Programs Branch Manufacturers Operations Division (EN-340)

Enclosure