ID: 1985-01.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Leon Hart -- State Supervisor of School Transportation State of Delaware

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Leon Hart State Supervisor of School Transportation State of Delaware The Townsend Building P.O. Box 1402 Dover, Delaware 19903

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a public or nonpublic school can purchase and use a bus to transport school children to or from school related events if that vehicle does not meet the requirements for school buses established by NHTSA.

There are two Federal laws that have a bearing on your situation. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), under which our agency issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-564), under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs.

Under the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards, "school bus" is defined as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (buses used as common carriers in urban transportation excluded). A "bus" is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from selling new school buses to schools or school districts if those buses do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Any new van which carries 11 persons or more that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events is a school bus, and must comply with the standards for school buses issued by this agency. A dealer or distributor who sells a new non-complying bus to a school or school district is subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

You indicated in your letter that the color of the school bus in question is white. The Highway Safety Act, which deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States, specifies requirements for the color, lighting, and other operational criteria for school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, (23 CFR 1204.4). Among the criteria in this standard are that a school bus should be painted yellow, equipped with special mirrors and lights, and marked "School Bus." In the case of a 15-passenger van, classified under the standard as a "Type II school vehicle," the identification criteria would have to be met if the van were equipped with school bus lights. If the State law conformed exactly to the standard, and if the bus in question were equipped as a school bus, then it would have to be painted yellow and signed as a school bus.

We wish to stress that HSPS No. 17 would affect the operation of your school buses only to the extent that Delaware has incorporated it into State law. Unlike the Vehicle Safety Act, which gives NHTSA direct regulatory authority over the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, the Highway Safety Act gives us authority only over the content of the States' highway safety grant programs. Whether the 15-passenger school bus would have to be painted yellow is therefore determined by State law.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THE TOWNSEND BUILDING DOVER, DELAWARE 19903

October 30, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel, NHTSA-NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

As the State Supervisor of School Transportation for the State of Delaware, it is important that I provide accurate information regarding the use of vehicles by school districts for the tranportatinn of children for other than home to school and return transportation.

Specifically, a school district has contacted this office to determine if they are permitted to purchase and use a Dodge Maxi van, painted white, and with the capacity of 15 persons to transport small groups of children to or from various school-related activities. Other school districts are currently using this type of vehicle which may compound the problem.

Question: May a public or nonpublic school purchase and use a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more to transport school children or other persons to or from school-related activities if that vehicle does not meet the requirements of a school bus as established by the National School Bus Standards plus those required by the State of Delaware?

Your prompt reply to this question and information to support this position will be appreciated. I may be contacted by calling 302-736-4697.

Sincerely,

M. Lean Hart State Supervisor School Transportation

MLH:mk

cc: James C. Phillips, Superintendent Sussex County Vo-Tech District Robert J. Vashell , Director Division of Motor Vehicles

ID: 1985-01.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mandan Public School District

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 3, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the use of Greyhound-type buses to transport school children to school-related activities. You stated that the Mandan Public School District is considering purchasing 1963 and 1965 model year Greyhound-type buses for the purposes of transporting elementary and secondary students to activity events. Your first question asked whether this would be allowed under our regulations on school buses.

To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect Mandan's choice of buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, window and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If Mandan had planned to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Since Mandan plans to buy 1963 and 1965 model year buses, however, the Vehicle Safety Act standards do not apply. There is nothing under that Act to prevent Mandan from buying a bus that was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus safety standards for school use. There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if North Dakota has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked "School Bus." We have ruled that the States should apply these specifications to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 has no direct effect on Mandan's purchase of 1963 and 1965 model year buses. HSPS 17 will affect Mandan only if North Dakota has adopted it and if North Dakota accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If North Dakota chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

Having said this, however, I would like to restate the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of the Greyhound-type buses, but it has safety features that the Greyhound-type buses that you are considering lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. These are features that Mandan should consider before it decides to buy a Greyhound-type bus.

Your second question asked whether Mandan may charter Greyhound-type buses from a common carrier to transport students to school-related events.

Again, Mandan would not be precluded from chartering Greyhound-type buses if North Dakota has not adopted our view that the specifications of HSPS 17 apply to activity buses.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

SINCERELY,

Mandan Public School District

December 3, 1984

Frank A. Brendt Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Mr. Brendt:

During a telephone conversation with Mr. David Soul, it was suggested that I request clarification from you on the following questions:

(A) The Mandan Public School District is considering the purchase of a 1963 and a 1965 Greyhound-type bus to transport elementary and secondary students to activity events. Is this legal and will the district be in conformance with Federal regulations? If not, what are the possible legal ramifications?

(B) May the Mandan Public School District charter buses from a common carrier who uses the same vehicles (Greyhound-type), to transport elementary and secondary students to activity type functions? If not, why, and what are the legal ramifications if we do?

Thank you for your prompt response.

Gordon G. Berge Business Administrator Mandan Public School District

ID: 1985-01.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John S. Cucheran

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering Jac Products, Inc. 1901 E. Ellsworth Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Cucheran:

This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Figure 10 of Standard No. 108 establishes the minimum design photometrics for center high mounted stoplamps. The test procedure for this particular part of Standard No. 108 which is specified in SAE J186a, stipulates that the "lamp axis shall be taken as the horizontal line through the light source." However, I believe that you have misinterpreted the light cone that is involved. The pertinent light cone in this case has its vertex at the photometer and a cross section at the plane of the lamp which encompasses the lens areas. From Drawing A that you have provided, it appears that your rail would interfere with this light cone.

In order to determine if your rack interferes with the photometric requirements, the vehicle must be tested with the rack in position as installed on the vehicle. As the agency has noted before, the photometric requirements do not specify that the entire lens must be visible from each 5 degree down test point. Instead, they specify the intensity of light that must be visible from those points. Therefore, the requirement can be met with a lamp whose lens is partially obscured by a portion of the vehicle when viewed from some of the test points.

We hope that this interpretation is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel November 30, 1984 Mr. Taylor Vinson U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Subject: Center Mounted Stop Light

Dear Mr. Vinson:

As you are aware, the cross rail on our deck mounted luggage racks supplied to O.E. automotive manufacturers infringes the 50 down cone requirement of Standard Number 108. This infringement will cause our products to be deleted from 1986 model vehicles equipped with center mounted stop lights with 50 cones that do not clear the rear rails.

Because we were not successful in getting a variance to allow infringement of the 5o cone on vehicles equipped with deck mounted luggage racks, our company will lose approximately 3 million dollars worth of business per year starting next summer, plus the loss of many jobs in an area already hit with some of the highest unemployment figures in the country. We are doing everything possible to adapt our products on new vehicles to save as many of our employees jobs as possible.

One thing that might make a difference on some potential 1986 business, is a clear definition of where the horizontal line, to establish the 5o cone, is taken from in the side view. I have enclosed two illustrations to clarify my request.

Illustration A shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the center of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone clears the bar.

Illustration B shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the bottom of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone is infringed by the cross rail. Mr. T. Vinson U.S. Department of Transportation November 30, 1984 Page Two

Several of our customers have taken for granted that the intent of the Standard is to establish the light path from the bottom of the lens. As you can see from our illustrations, the location of this point can mean approval or rejection of our products in cases such as this.

Your interpretation of our request, at your earliest date, would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering cc: Mr. Barry Felrice/Associate Administrator for Rulemaking Mr. Jack Bott/President-JAC Products Inc.

ID: 1985-01.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jerry D. Williams -- Senior Vice President, American Transportation Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

This is in further response to your December 12, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our definition of a school bus. Your specific question asked, "Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multipurpose passenger vehicles?" As explained below, a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons (i.e., 10 children and a driver) to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus. A vehicle carrying 10 or less persons would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Under the definitions section of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571.3), vehicles carrying 11 or more persons which are sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events are "school buses." Under our regulations, a vehicle which is designed to carry less than 11 persons would considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Such a vehicle would be certified as complying with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Ms. Deirdre Hom of my staff informed your associate, Mr. Joe Clark, of the above in a telephone call on December 14, 1984. This letter confirms the information given to Mr. Clark in that conversation.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel December 12, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 407 Street S.W. , Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We, as a manufacturer school bus bodies, have for some time now been operating with the understanding that vehicles built to transport ten (10) passengers or less came under the vehicle classification designated as a multi-purpose vehicle. For this reason, we have refrained from building school bus bodies with capacities of ten passengers or less. (Please see the attached bulletin we published on this matter.)

It is recently been brought to our attention that this interpretation, which we are recently following, is not a shared practice by every manufacturer. Although we do not have actual verification of the fact, we understand NHTSA has advised some bus body manufacturers that the multi-purpose vehicle definition does not serve the intent of the public law, specifically as it relates to the transportation of ten school aged passengers or less.

We, therefore, wish to have clarification of this matter and specially to the question: Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multi-purpose vehicles?

We have a bid pending for several units and would appreciate your telex response by Friday, December 14, 1984. I am afraid we will lose this bid unless we can respond positively in the same manner is our competitors have responded.

Sincerely,

Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President Marketing

JDW:jj

Attachment

TO: All AmTran Dealers FROM: Joe Clark, National Sales Manager

DATE: March 25, 1983

SUBJECT: Minimum Capacity Ratings for School Use Vanguard and Minuteman Model Bus Bodies

In order to certify a Vanguard or a Minuteman model bus body as a school bus, we must observe the federal minimum passenger capacity rating which is now set at ten (10) passengers. This minimum passenger rating does not include the driver. In the case of a lift-equipped bus, the passenger rating would translate to two (2) wheelchair passengers and eight (8) passengers seated in the fixed seating area.

For your information, if a Vanguard or Minuteman order is requested with a rating less than ten (10) passengers we must certify the bus to what is know as a multi-purpose vehicle standard. To meet this standard, other federal standards come into effect which are very stringent and extremely expensive to comply with. For this reason, we request your cooperation in always observing the minimum passenger capacity criteria of ten (10) passengers.

JCC/jj

ID: 1985-01.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Verne L. Freeland

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Verne L. Freeland P.O. Box 693652 Miami, FL 33269

This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of the Rulemaking division of this agency, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that you had developed a child restraint system which was built into the vehicle seat, and asked how to proceed to have this child restraint certified as complying with Standard No. 213. As currently written, Standard No. 213 does not accommodate your type of restraint.

A manufacturer of a child restraint system is required to certify that each child restraint system manufactured by it complies with all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, and adding a statement to that effect to the label required by section S5.5 of the Standard. This certification need not be based on actual test results; NHTSA only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what test results, engineering analysis, or other data would be sufficient to enable it to meet the due care requirement in certifying that its child restraints comply with the standard. Certainly, we would recommend that a manufacturer marketing a new child restraint design test that restraint in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard.

As you will see from the enclosed copy of Standard No. 213, Section S5.3.1 of the standard requires each child restraint system to be capable of being restrained by a type 1 seat belt system. In addition, the test procedures in section S6 specify that the child restraint is to be tested by attaching it to a standard vehicle seat solely by the vehicle seat's lap belts. Your design, which incorporates the restraint into a vehicle seat, could not be attached to a standard vehicle seat by means of lap belts.

Standard No. 213 would have to be amended in order for you to be able to certify that your child restraint satisfies all the requirements of that standard. 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) gives interested persons the right to petition this agency for amendments a safety standard, and sets forth the required contents of the petition, the address to which it should be sent, and the procedures which will be followed by the agency in evaluating the petition. If you wish, you may file such a petition. Should such a petition be granted, this agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard No. 213.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Verna L. Freeland PO Box 693652 Miami, Florida 33269 Tel(305)653-1882

July 4, 1984

Val Radovich, Safety Standards Engineer, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 5316 NRM 12, Washington, D.C., 20590

Re: Obtaining certification of "Built-In Childs Safety Seat" to U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213-80 - Child Seating Systems

Dear Mr. Radovich,

I am the inventor of a built-in childs safety seat as described and depicted in the attached copy of my pending application for U.S. Letters Patent as/also the attached illustrative pictures of miniature model of same.

In April, 1984, I submitted a copy of the patent application and pictures, together with a sales pitch, entitled 'comment' (copy attached) to each of the 19 directors of Chrysler corporation in hopes of having Chrysler manufacture and incorporate the depicted child's safety seat in their vehicles.

On May 8th 1984, as a result of the submission of such material to Chrysler, I received, signed and delivered to Chrysler a 'Suggestion Agreement' as a prerequisite which, I believed, would expedite the consideration and implementation of the invention by Chrysler. (copy attached).

On May 29, 1984, I was advised by Chrysler that the built-in childs safety seat must be certified by NHTSA to meet the requirements of U.S. Motor Vehicle Standard No. 213-80 - Child Seating Systems, before the seat could be evaluated by Chrysler. This May 29th letter from Chrysler further advised me to obtain information as to such certification by contacting NHTSA at 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., attention: Secretary Dole. (a copy of such letter is attached).

On June 4, 1984, I sent a letter to NHTSA at the address and to the attention of Secretary Dole, as advised by the letter from Chrysler. (copy of June 4th letter attached).

On July 3, 1984, having received no response to my letter of June 4th, I began telephoning to seek the requested information, commencing with first telephone call to Secretary Dole's offices, which referred me to another telephone number, which referred me to another telephone number, etc., etc., etc., which finally resulted in my being advised that you (or a member of your staff) would ultimately respond to my June 4th letter when the same had finally filtered down through the chain of command from Secretary Dole's office. (a procedure which was estimated as a 'month or two').

In view of the foregoing information, and seeking to expedite the matter, I telephoned your office and was advised to send a new letter directly to you. During such telephone conversation I attempted to describe my invention in order to secure some telephonic information as to the procedure, criteria, and time element involved in obtaining the desired certification and was advised that since my proposed seat is bolted to the regular auto seat (as a built-in integral part thereof) it did not have the required 'tether belting' necessary to meet the specifications of Standard 213-80 and hence, would probably require petition for variance or for an exemption from such requirement of the act.

Now then, Mr. Radovich, having given you all of the background information, with supporting documents, I ask for your assistance in obtaining the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible including but not limited to:

(a) Advising me as to the procedure or procedures necessary to effect certification of the depicted built-in childs safety seat.

(b) Advising me as to the necessity and, if so, the procedure for obtaining variance and/or exemption from the 'tether belt' requirement of 213-80.

(c) Advising me as to whether or not I must construct and furnish you with a full scale working model of the depicted built-in childs safety seat and, if so, where and when?

(e) Advising me as to the anticipated costs and expenses involved in obtaining certification, and

(f) Such other and further advice as you may be so kind as to suggest in order to obtain the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible.

In regard to the ultimate certification, I understand that the present certification requires that child seat safety equipment meet safety standards of a thirty (30) mile per hour impact test. It is my belief that the depicted built-in childs safety seat will meet much higher safety standards of 55 miles per hour impact, and higher. This, coupled with the elimination of injuries caused by improperly attached equipment, etc., (as suggested in the patent application and comments) may well give rise to further decreasing injuries to children in vehicles and, consequently, I am anxious to have the built-in childs safety seat tested to its maximum safety certification instead of the normal and minimal 30 miles per hour standards.

I apologize for the length of this letter but I sincerely believe that the depicted seat constitutes such a substantial improvement of the existing childs safety seats now on the market as to warrant consideration of getting it certified and on the market as soon as humanly possible.

Yours very truly,

Verne L. Freeland

xerox copy *to: R.E. Springer, Outside Suggestion Dept., Chrysler Corporation, CIMS 418-05-30, P. O. Box 1118 Detroit, Michigan, 48288

* without attachments

&: WIGMAN & COHEN, P.C., Suite 200, Crystal Square 3, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202 Serial No. 584, 402 Ref: 1589-A

ID: 1985-01.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: B. Henderson -- Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. B. Henderson Automobile Importers of America, Inc. 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1002 Arlington, VA 22202

This responds to your letter of November 8, 1984, asking numerous questions concerning Standards No. 208, 209 and 210. The answer to your questions, numbered as presented in the attachment to your letter, are as follows:

1.) S.7.4.4 of Standard No. 208 sets requirements concerning access to the latchplate on the outboard side of a seat. The purpose of the requirement is to make safety belts more convenient to operate by requiring the latchplate to be accessible. You asked, in effect, whether the requirements of S7.4.4 also applies to an inboard mounted buckle located between the seat and a console. The answer is no. An inboard mounted buckle, however, must comply with the requirements of S7.4.6.

2.) You asked what is the meaning of the terms "comfort clip and window-shade" in section 7.4.2 of Standard No. 208. The terms refer to elements of a safety belt system which are used to relieve tension in the torso portion of a Type 2 lap-shoulder belt. A comfort clip is a device which attaches to the belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken up by the belt's retractor. The term window-shade refers to a type of device in a safety belt retractor which allows an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt once it has been adjusted around the occupant.

3.) You asked if it is considered, "Action", if the driver hangs the webbing of an automatic belt on a manual convenience hook. An automatic belt must provide protection by means that require no action by the vehicle occupants. Manual vehicle convenience hooks used with an automatic belt system must comply with S 7.4.1 of the Standard, which requires a convenience hook to automatically release under specified conditions.

4.) You asked if it is mandatory to use 7/16-20 UNF 2A or 1/2-13 UNC-2A bolts for automatic belt mounting hardware. The answer is no. Automatic belts meeting the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not required to meet all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. The enclosed interpretation letter of August 7, 1981, to Volkswagen more fully explains the application of Standard No. 209 to automatic belts.

5.) You asked if the retractor of a rear lap belt is a 2 point mounting type, are both points considered to be anchorage points? You also asked if both points must be within the range specified in S 4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

Standard No. 210 defines an anchorage as "provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." If by a two point mounting you mean a retractor that has two means for transferring the belt loads to the vehicle structures, then both points are anchorages and must conform to Standard No. 210. The range specified in S4.3.1.1. is measured from the seating reference point to the point of contact of the webbing with its attachment hardware. It does not require the anchorage points to be within that range.

6.) Finally, you asked what is the definition of the term "most upright position" used in S 4.3.2.1 of Standard No. 210. In referring to the "most upright position" of the seat back, the agency means the seat back adjustment position which most closely approximates a vertical position.

I hope this information is of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 8, 1984

Office of Chief Counsel NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please provide a written interpretation of the following question:

FMVSSS 210, Section 4.3.2. requires that the seat back be "in its most upright position". Please define the phrase "in its most upright position".

Also please provide answers for the questions on the attached page.

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

B. Henderson

BH:js Attachments

QUESTIONS ON FMVSS 208, 209, 210.

1. FMVSS 208 S.7.4.4. states "the side of the vehicle interior to allow unhindered transit of the test block defined in Figure 4 of this standard to the latch plate or buckle......"

Does it mean that the whole buckle should be in the test block area as illustrated in Fig. A below?

What if the only push-button of the buckle fall in that test block area as illustrated in Fig. B below?

"INSERT"

Figure A Figure B

2. What is the meaning of comfort clip and window-shade? (in FMVSS 208 S.7.4.2)

3. Is it considered to be 'Action' if the driver hangs the webbing on the hook of the passive belt with manual convenience hook?

(New regulation FMVSS 208 5.4.1.2.1.1)

4. Is it mandatory to use 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13 UNC-21 for the passive belt mounting hardware? (FMVSS 209 S.4.1(f)).

5. If the retractor or reel of the rear lap belt is 2 point mounting type, are both points considered to be anchorage points? Should both points be in the range defined in the FMVSS 210 S.4.3.1.1?

6. What is the definition of 'most upright position' of seat back in the FMVSS 210 S.4.3.2.1?

ID: 1985-01.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 26, 1984, requesting several interpretations of Standard Nos. 201, 208, and 210. The answers to your questions raised in Attachments I, II, and III of your letter are discussed below.

In attachment I of your letter, you asked about the requirement of S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201. You were specifically concerned about the language which provides that the length of the armrest is to be measured vertically in side elevation. You provided a drawing of an armrest and asked if the length is to be measured as shown in section (dimension) b of your Figure 1.

The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that there is at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. For this requirement to be meaningful, the covered surface must be contactable by the vehicle occupant. The vehicle occupant would not contact the base of the arm rest illustrated in your drawing. Therefore, the measurement should be made at dimension a in section A-A or dimension c in section B-B as shown in your Figure 1.

On question one of Attachment II, you asked about the application of Standard Nos. 208 and 209 to a safety belt system you are developing to meet S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. The system consists of a two point automatic belt and a Type 1 manual safety belt. You asked which requirements of Standard No. 209 apply to such an automatic belt. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of August 7, 1981 to Volkswagen which explains the application of Standard No. 209 to an automatic belt.

In question two of Attachment II, you state that your vehicle will have four anchorages for each front outboard seating position (two anchorages for the automatic belt and two for the Type 1 seat belt assembly). You said that S4.4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages for Type 2 safety belts at each front outboard seating position and you asked what is meant by anchorages for a Type 2 belt. You also asked whether you must install any other anchorages at those positions in your vehicle.

Paragraph S.4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly to be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars. This is true regardless of whether the seating position is equipped with an air bag and a lap belt, with a single diagonal automatic belt or with any other system. Safety Standard No. 210 is independent of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. A Type 2 belt requires three anchorages (two for the lap portion of the belt and one for the upper torso restraint). The presence of the Type 2 anchorages in vehicles will allow vehicle owners to install easily Type 2 belts at their own initiative if they desire to do so for whatever reason. For example, if a single diagonal automatic belt system has been damaged, an owner may wish to replace it with a Type 2 manual belt system.

Under paragraph S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages for automatic belts are exempted from the location requirements of the standard. This exception was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs to determine the optimum anchorage locations in terms of both effectiveness and comfort (43 FR 53440, Nov. 16, 1978). If, however, the anchorage points for an automatic belt do not fall within the location specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, the manufacturer would have to provide additional anchorage points that could be used by a properly located Type 2 manual belt. Thus if your lap belt and upper torso anchorages fall within the location requirements for Type II belts, you would not have to provide any additional anchorages.

In question three of Attachment II, you asked what strength test applies to anchorages used with an automatic belt and to the manual lap belt used in your system. You illustrated the test procedures you plan to use in your Figure 3. As explained below, the procedure shown in Figure 3(1) is correct and the procedure shown in Figure 3(2) is partially correct.

The agency has stated in an interpretation letter of July 23, 1980 to Mazada that the anchorages for a single diagonal automatic belt should be tested with a 3,000-pound force for purposes of Standard No. 210, in accordance with the test procedures of paragraph S5.2. This is the same force that is required for testing the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt system. This force requirement is applicable whether the single diagonal automatic belt is used alone or whether it is used in conjunction with a manual lap belt. The anchorages for the manual lap belt, however, would be required to withstand test forces of 5,000 pounds under paragraph S4.2.1 for Standard No. 210. The anchorages for the manual lap belt and for the automatic belt must separately meet their respective force requirements and would not have to be tested simultaneously since they are separate systems.

In question one of the Attachment III, you requested the agency to clarify the words "fold" and "tumble" used in S7.4.6 of Standard No. 208. You stated your understanding that "fold" means to move the seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-a and "tumble" means to move both the seat cushion and seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-b. Your understanding of both words is correct.

In question two of Attachment III, you asked the meaning of the word "receptacle" as used in paragraph S7.4.6.2 of Standard No. 208. The word "receptacle" refers to the devices into which an occupant would insert the tang of a safety belt to fasten the belt.

I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

OCC 1578

Ref. No. 84-007 Date Nov. 26, 1984

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear sir,

Subject: Questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 201, 208 and 210

We, DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD., plan to export our vehicles to U.S.A. We have some questions to conform our vehicle to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We would like to ask you to answer the questions described in Attachment I, Attachment II and Attachment III.

Your earliest and kind response will be greatly appreciated.

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

Attachment I: Standard No. 201

The underlined part of the paragraph S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201 as follows is not clear at which section the armrest shall be measured vertically.

S3.5.1(c) "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area."

We understand it shall be measured at the section b shown in Fig. 1. If our understanding is wrong, please explain or illustrate in detail.

Fig. 1

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment II: Standard Nos. 208 and 210

We are developing an occupant protection system shown in Fig. 2. It consists of an automatic belt and optionally Type 1 seat belt assembly to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

Fig. 2

(Graphics omitted)

Question 1.

We understand that the paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208 means "An automatic belt furnished pursuant to S4.5.3 that is required to meet the perpendicular frontal (Illegible Word) protection requrements of S5.1 neet not conform to the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209." Then, shall the automatic belt conform only to S4.1.2.1 (including S5.1), S4.5.3.3(including S7.1) and S4.1.1 of Standard No. 208, and need not conform to any requirements of Standard No. 209?

Question 2.

Our vehicle with the automatic belt will have four anchorages for one front seating position (two anchorages for the automatic belt and two for the Type 1 seat belt assembly), and have no anchorages for a three-point manual seat belt assembly. Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires that seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboad designated seating position in passenger cars. We cannot understand what the seat belt anchorages for the Type 2 seat belt assembly mean. Are the anchorages of the vehicle regarded as the anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt anchorages? To conform to Standard No. 210, shall the vehicle install any other anchorages?

Question 3.

We cannot find any requirements about the strength test of anchorages for an automatic belt. To conform to Standard No. 210, we will test the anchorages of the vehicle by the way shown in Fig. 3 according to the test procedures for the anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly described in Standard No. 210. If our test procedure is wrong, please explain it in detail.

Fig. 3

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment III

Question 1.

The difference of meanings between "fold" and "tumble" in the paragraph S7.4.6 of Standard No. 208 is not clear. We understand that the meaning of the word "fold" is to move the seat back forward shown in Fig. 4-a, and that the meaning of the word "tumble" is to move both the seat cushion and the seat back shown in Fig. 4-b. If our understanding is wrong, please explain the meanings.

Question 2.

We cannot understand the word "receptacle" in paragraph S7.4.6.2. So please explain what the phrase "the inboard receptacle end of a seat belt assembly" means.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-01.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Neal McCormick -- Senior Consultant Transportation, Colorado Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/2/84 letter from Diane K. Steed to Jim Burnett, Chairman, NTSB

TEXT: This responds to your November 21, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to school buses. Our answers follow your specific questions which we have restated below.

1. Do the Federal school bus standards in fact preclude a school district from transporting pupils in vehicles not meeting all school bus standards?

To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect a school district's choice of buses. The first of these are the motor vehicle safety standards to which you refer in your letter. These safety standards were issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) and apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If a school district plans to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. The Federal sanctions are directed against the dealer or manufacturer who sells a new noncomplying bus to a school for school use. Strictly speaking, a school district is not prohibited by our school bus safety standards from operating a noncomplying school bus.

There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if Colorado has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked "School Bus." Therefore, although the Vehicle Safety Act would not prevent a school district from operating a noncomplying school bus, HSPS 17 might affect your school districts if Colorado has adopted it and if Colorado accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. I have enclosed a copy of HSPS 17 that was photocopied from volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1204.4, as requested by your associate, Mr. Joseph Marchese.

If Colorado chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

Having said this, however, I would like to restate the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. Such a bus has safety features such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. These are features that school districts should consider when deciding to purchase their school vehicles.

2. May a state set out definitions of vehicles (for transportation of pupils) which do not meet all applicable school bus standards? If not, what penalties may be applied?

Our Federal motor vehicle safety regulations define a bus as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus as a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of a State not to adopt the Federal classification has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no State shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.

The preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact that a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. A State decision to adopt all or none of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle in accordance with the Federal standards.

3. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle not meeting all applicable school bus safety standards and uses it for transporting pupils, what penalties may be applied? Would such penalties apply if the vehicle is used for "activity" transportation only?

As we explained above, the school district that purchases and uses a noncomplying school bus would not be subject to Federal sanctions under the Vehicle Safety Act. It is only illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to sell such a vehicle to a school knowing that the school will use it to transport students. Any person selling new vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Vehicle Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $ 1,000 per violation. Further, in regard to the second part of this question, the answer is yes. The penalties would apply to a person selling a new bus to a school for school related activity trips if that bus is not certified to the Federal safety standards.

You should note that although a school district would not be subject to Federal sanctions under the Safety Act for buying and using a noncomplying bus, using such a vehicle as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

4. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle meeting all applicable school bus standards and modifies such a vehicle, is there a penalty? For example, replacement of 222 seating with seats not in compliance with the 222 standards.

The answer is no. Nothing in the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicles. However, the Act does prohibit dealers, manufacturers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The school can replace the seats of the original school bus with seats that do not comply with FMVSS No. 222 if it so desires. As we pointed out above, the school could be subject to increased liability in case of an accident. We suggest that you discuss this matter with your attorney or insurance company.

5. Is NHTSA at present considering any amendments to the existing standards for school buses? Also, are any additional standards likely to be promulgated within the next year?

Our agency has recently received a petition for rulemaking requesting that FMVSS No. 222 be amended to set certain specifications for seat belt performance on large school buses if seat belts are voluntarily installed on these vehicles. The decision to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking will be made by NHTSA in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

6. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has set out several recommendations for "activity" buses. Does NHTSA concur in these recommendations? (These refer to certification/training of mechanics, etc.)

Enclosed is a copy of a November 2, 1984 letter from NHTSA's Administrator, Diane K. Steed, to Chairman Burnett of the National Transportation Safety Board, which comments on several recommendations NTSB made regarding school bus repairs, certification of mechanics, instruction on emergency equipment use, et cetera. I believe this letter will discuss your concerns thoroughly.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

ENCLS.

[See 11/2/84 letter from Diane K. Steed to Jim Burnett, Chairman, NTSB] COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

November 21, 1984

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel NHTSA -- USDOT

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter concerns Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly those applicable to school buses; of special interest are Nos. 217, 220, 221, and 222. Your answers will be of special interest to this state; in addition, copies will be provided to State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services per a request at the annual meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on November 5.

The standards appear to preclude a school agency from acquiring any vehicle, other than one meeting all applicable school bus standards, for the transportation of pupils to/from school or school related events. Following are specific questions in this regard:

1. Do the above standards in fact preclude a school district from transporting pupils in vehicles not meeting all school bus standards?

2. May a state set out definition(s) of vehicles (for transportation of pupils) which do not meet all applicable school bus standards? If not, what penalties may be applied?

3. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle not meeting all applicable school bus standards, and uses it for transporting pupils, what penalties may be applied? Would such penalty (if any) apply if the vehicle is used for "activity" transportation only?

4. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle meeting all applicable school bus standards and modifies such vehicle (in a category governed by one of the above standards) is there a penalty? For example, replacement of 222 seating with seats not in compliance with the 222 standards.

5. Is NHTSA at present considering any amendments to the existing standards for school buses? Also, are any additional standards likely to be promulgated within the next year?

6. The National Transportation Safety Board has set out several recommendations for "activity" buses; does NHTSA concur in these recommendations? (These refer to certification/training of mechanics, etc.)

Thank you for any consideration.

Neal McCormick Senior Consultant Transportation

CC: PAUL STEWART -- WEST VA. DEPT. OF EDUCATION; ROY G. BRUBACHER -- COLORADO DEPT. OF EDUCATION; DANIEL G. WISOTZKEY -- COLORADO DEPT. OF EDUCATION

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: 1985-01.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eddie Cole Answer Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Eddie Cole Answer Products, Inc. 27967 Beale Court Valencia, CA 91355

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter regarding the importation of motorcycle helmets by your company from Italy.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, applies to helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. You stated in your letter that there is a DOT "approval sticker" on the helmet and that your company's name is clearly displayed on the helmet. Standard No. 218 requires that each helmet be permanently and legibly labeled with the manufacturer's name or identification, model designation, size, month and year of manufacture, and the symbol DOT. The DOT symbol does not indicate approval of any helmet by the Department of Transportation. Instead, the DOT symbol represents the manufacturer's certification that the helmet meets all the requirements of Standard No. 218. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information.

As an importer, your company is also considered a manufacturer under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is administered by this agency. Therefore, either your company's name or the Italian manufacturer's name should be af fixed to each helmet. Your company and the Italian manufacturer are both responsible for any defect in the helmet or failure to comply with the standard's requirements.

You asked about other regulations of which you should be aware. Copies of these are enclosed:

49 CFR Part 551--Procedural Rules (Subpart D--Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers). 49 CFR Part 566--Manufacturer Identification.

If you need additional information, please contact this office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

December 11, 1984

N.H.T.S.A. Office Chief Council 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20690 Attn: Mr. Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt

Please let me introduce our company to you. We are, Answer Products, 27967 Beale Ct., Valencia, Ca., 91355.

We currently are importing helmets from Italy. The helmet does have a D.O.T. approval sticker on it, but the manufacturers name is not displayed on the helmet. Our name is clearly displayed on the helmet.

We do have a product liability insurance policy, from the manufacture for, $5,000,000 and our own policy for $2,000,000.

I need to know if there is any other special regulations that we need to be aware of, and also if the manufacture name should be displayed on each helmet?

My secretary spoke to a agent in your office this morning and he mentioned a standard 218, which I am not familiar with. Is there any way you could send me a copy of this?

I would appreciate any information you could forward to me concerning this. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Eddie Cole V.P. Answer products, Inc. EC:sc