ID: 77-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1977, letter asking whether 10 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (body panel) that encloses occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 10 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that none of them are required to comply with the standard.

The joints numbered 1 through 4 on page 1 of your letter refer to hanger straps, panels and pads involved in the installation of overhead storage racks. These items of equipment are not considered to have a function in enclosing occupant compartment space and, therefore, are excluded from the standard's requirements.

The exterior roof luggage rack described in paragraphs 5 and 6 is not considered to have a function in enclosing occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which the rack is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint.

The NHTSA agrees that the joints described in paragraphs 1 through 4 on page 2 of your letter, relating to the installation of air conditioning units, involve the type of ventilation space that is not subject to the requirements for joint strength.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 9, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 221

We would appreciate a ruling that FMVSS 221 does not apply to the following joints because of the definition of "body panel joint": Book Racks - Fig. 1

1. Hanger strap to headlining to bow 2. Panel (tray) to panel to hanger strap

Parcel Racks - Fig. 2

3. Hanger bracket to headlining to bow 4. Pad to hanger bracket

Roof Luggage Rack - Fig. 3

5. Panel to panel to roof sheet 6. Rail assembly to panel to roof sheet

We would appreciate a ruling that FMVSS 221 does not apply to the following joints because of the "ventilation clause" in the definition of "body panel joint".

Air Conditioner Joints

1. Saddle assembly to roof structural members - Figs. 4, 5, 6 2. Saddle assembly, structural joints - Figs. 7, 8 3. Duct section to duct section - Fig. 9 4. Duct assembly to roof sheet - Fig. 9

Thanks for your help in this matter.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

cc: LARRY HANSON

BODY TO SADDLE TRIMS

FIGURE #7

FIGURE #8

(Illegible Word) DUCT TO DUCT JOINTS

(Illegible Word) DUCT TO ROOF

FIGURE #9

(Illegible Word) AIR CONDITIONER COVER TO DUCT TRANSITION

(Illegible Word) AIR CONDITIONER COVER TO ROOF

(Graphics omitted)

Figure 1

Hanger Strap Tray

Overhead book rack available for conventent storage.

Figure 2

Pad

Hanger Bracket

Deluxe tubular steel parcel racks shown with upholstered aisel rail.

Figure 3

Rail Assembly

Panels

Roof luggage rack available in various lengths.

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE #4

AIR CONDITIONER SADDLE SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE TO BODY STRUCTURE

FIGURE $5

AIR CONDITIONER SADDLE TO SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE

FIGURE #6

BODY PANELS TO SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE

SADDLE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bohmer-Reed Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 25, 1977, letter asking whether your motor home conversions make you a manufacturer or an alterer for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

In your conversion of motor homes, you install used bodies on new chassis. The NHTSA considers the mounting of a used body on a new chassis to be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle that requires certification. This makes you a manufacturer rather than an alterer. The rules for certification are found in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I have enclosed copies of these regulations for your information.

Your second question asks whether the converted vehicle must comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, even though the original body was manufactured prior to the effective date of the standard. Vehicles must comply with all standards in effect on the date of their manufacture. For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a new chassis, you are permitted to treat as the date of manufacture, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in Part 568), the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. Therefore, it appears that the vehicle you manufacture would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.

SINCERELY,

February 25, 1977

Chief Counsel NHTSA

Our's is a new company which was formed for the purpose of going into business converting customers 31' Airstream Trailers, from 1968 to present models, into Motorhomes.

We build the chassis and do the conversion. We do not use any of the airstream chassis or suspension.

Our chassis components have been designed by Bendix for rear suspension and brakes; Spicer Dana for the front axle; Firestone for the air suspension; Saginaw Gears for the steering system; and Ford Motors for the engine, transmission and cooling systems.

We are attempting to comply with the Federal Docket in all respects.

My first question is, are we to be considered a manufacturer or an alterer?

Second, on Airstream Trailers, 1968 through September 1, 1972, must 302 be complied with if it does not already comply?

I would appreciate any information you could furnish me on this matter.

John O. Bohmer President Bohmer - Reed, Inc. Motorhome Conversions

ID: 77-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Marchal America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1976, asking whether 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) permits the installation of quartz halogen headlamps on State-owned vehicles. It is understood that these headlamps are manufactured in France, and are not of sealed beam construction. Thus they do not conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your letter also commented that certain "state highway and law enforcement agencies . . . have indicated . . . that they prefer the quartz halogen units but are reluctant to install these units in their state vehicles because they are not of an approved type."

Importation and sale of nonconforming motor vehicle equipment is expressly forbidden by Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 may be imposed for each violation. Therefore, quartz halogen headlamps that do not conform to Standard No. 108 may not be imported into the United States and sold to State agencies.

Your inquiry appears premised that such may be allowable pursuant to Section 1392(d) which reads in pertinent part:

Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard.

Section 1392(d) reflects a primary purpose of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that there be uniform national safety standards for the manufacture of motor vehicles, and that the flow of interstate commerce not be burdened by differing requirements among the States. An exception is made, however, that allows the States to set higher standards for vehicles manufactured for State use. Section 1392(d) would be inapplicable to your fact situation which, as we understand it, involves a conversion after purchase, and does not involve a procurement specification affecting the vehicle manufacturer.

ID: 77-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bertolini Engineering Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 7, 1977, letter asking whether your proposed remanufacture of 573 trailer chassis would constitute the manufacture of new chassis which would be required to conform to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or any other applicable regulation.

According to the remanufacture proposal you describe, Seatrain Lines will be the user of the chassis both before and after the remanufacture, although it will no longer own any of them. Fruehauf Corporation will become the owner of all of the chassis, whereas it currently owns none.

The NHTSA regulations pertaining to the remanufacture of chassis are found in 49 CFR Part 571.7. In that regulation the agency states that the chassis must be owned or leased by the same entity both before and after remanufacture. Since Seatrain is the current user of the vehicles (as owner and lessee) and will continue to be the user after remanufacture (as a lessee), it appears that the remanufactured vehicle will not be one that requires certification with motor vehicle safety standards.

It should be pointed out that if the transaction you describe for achieving remanufacture becomes a large-scale practice in the trailer industry, the agency will be compelled to reconsider the meaning of "manufacture" under its regulations.

SINCERELY,

BERTOLINI ENGINEERING CO., INC.

March 7, 1977

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

ATTN: Karen Dyson

Pursuant to our telephone conversation of March 4, 1977, I would appreciate an opinion on the following proposed remanufacture scheduled for immediate production.

The facts are as follows: Seatrain Lines is a container steamship operator who operates many thousands of chassis in the United States. They have in service now 573 chassis which they would like to have remanufactured into updated pieces of equipment by Bertolini Engineering Company, Inc. The reason for this move is that they have found that the old frames are not worthwhile maintaining any longer because of their inability to stand the gaff of their day to day operations.

Furthermore, these chassis will not meet Association of American Railroads Piggyback Regulations which are due to become effective in January 1985. However, the running gear on these chassis is sound and shows very little wear and usage, and will be retained in the remanufactured vehicle. Of these 573 chassis, Seatrain is the owner of 300, which they had purchased on a conditional sales contract. The remaining 273 are owned by Thriftway Leasing Company who is leasing the equipment to Seatrain. Seatrain would like all 573 chassis leased back to them by Thriftway Leasing Company.

Thriftway Leasing Company in turn has come to Fruehauf Corporation for financial assistance to finance the package. Fruehauf Corporation therefore proposes to buy all 573 chassis, turn them over to Bertolini Engineering Company for remanufacture, and then lease them back to Thriftway who in turn will sublease them to Seatrain.

It should be pointed out that Seatrain will be the user before and after the remanufacture and the Fruehauf Corporation will be the owner before and after remanufacture.

Also, the Vehicle Identification Number will be carried through after remanufacture so as to maintain its original identity.

This procedure, we feel, is totally in accord with the requirements of Docket No. 75-9, Notice of the Federal Register, July 1, 1976 and we therefore request your concurrence that these chassis will not be considered newly manufactured and will not have to be certified as being in compliance with MVSS 121 or other applicable safety standards established subsequent to their original date of manufacture.

Please let me have your opinion on this as soon as possible inasmuch as we are ready to go into production on these units and are merely awaiting your interpretation.

William A. Bertolini President

ID: 77-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Govmark Organization, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 10, 1976, letter asking whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to the living area of motor homes and mobile homes.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) no longer regulates mobile homes. The National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) ("the Mobile Home Act") established within the Department of Housing and Urban Development a comprehensive program for the regulation of mobile homes. We have concluded that one result of that statute's enactment was the implied repeal of the NHTSA's authority with respect to mobile homes. Accordingly, we consider that the enactment had the effect of amending the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of "motor vehicle" to exclude "mobile homes" as the latter term is defined in the Mobile Home Act.

A motor home, on the other hand, is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (or a bus if it is designed to carry more than 10 persons) and is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 302. The standard mandates that certain enumerated components located within the vehicle occupant compartment meet specified burn test requirements. The living area of a motor home constitutes part of the vehicle occupant compartment, and therefore, any component listed in S4.1 of the standard and situated within the living area must comply with the standard.

SINCERELY,

THE GOVMARK ORGANIZATION INC.

November 10, 1976

Associate Administrator Traffic Safety Programs U.S. Department of Transportation Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Administration

re: Federal Motor Vehicle Standard #302

We are seeking a clarification of the type of vehicle and the classification of occupant space.

We specifically refer to a motor home which is a self-propelled vehicle containing living quarters.

To our mind, this would classify as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.

Your standard restricts the flammability of materials in the occupant compartments of motor vehicles. We can see with a commercial freight trailer that the occupant compartment is clearly the cab of the tractor assembly.

In a motor home, either the driving section or the living quarters could be considered occupant compartments.

Therefore, the living quarters should also contain materials which conform to FMVSS #302.

Additionally, if a motor home is larger than 8 feet wide and 32 feet long it then becomes a mobile home. (We are seeking confirmation from HUD for this interpretation).

If it becomes a mobile home, are both standards in effect or will one department allow the other department to rule?

Salvatore Messina

ID: 77-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes Company's November 29, 1976, question whether an antilock valve (incorporating the function of a relay valve) is subject to the requirement of S5.7.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that a truck or bus be capable of stopping within a specified distance following failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (with the exception of certain parts that are common to both sides of a "split" service brake system).

From your description, the antilock valve in question, whether or not it incorporates the function of a relay valve, is a part of the service brake system designed to contain compressed air, and would be one of the components whose failure would be subject to the requirement of S5.7.1. I assume that the value would be in the subsystem to the front axle or to the rear axles of a truck or bus and, as such, would not be a value that is common to both sides of a "split" service brake system.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

November 29, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Request For Interpretation FMVSS-121 Air Brake Systems S 5.7.1 Emergency Brake System Performance

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Kelsey-Hayes Company hereby requests an interpretation of the above cited provision. Specifically, we ask whether an antilock air valve, which incorporates the function of a relay valve, constitutes a part designed to contain compressed air, such that a failure of this valve requires conformance to the emergency brake system performance requirements.

Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciated.

Very truly yours, John F. McCuen -- COUNSEL

ID: 77-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kurt Orban Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1976, asking how you may import motor vehicle tires "in sample lots of less than one hundred tires per design model" that "may not fully comply with the sidewall markings and/or treadwear indicator requirements."

Pursuant to Title 19 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(2)(vii), nonconforming tires may be imported into the United States for purposes of test or experiment if they will not be used upon the public roads. This section, however, does allow use of nonconforming vehicles, imported for purposes of test or experiment, upon the public roads for a specified time "where such use is an integral part of tests or experiments for which such vehicle is being imported," provided that the importer attaches to a form supplied at the port of entry (Form HS-7) "a description of the tests or experiments for which the vehicle is being imported, the period of time during which it is estimated that it will be necessary to test the vehicle on the public roads, and the disposition to be made of the vehicle after completion of the tests or experiments." Although this does not expressly cover equipment items, we see no reason why the provision cannot be interpreted as including tires, since nonconforming vehicles using the public roads for test or experiment may well be travelling on nonconforming tires.

We therefore conclude that you may import nonconforming tires for purposes of test or experiment upon the public roads, provided the statement described in 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(vii) is supplied.

SINCERELY

KURT ORBAN COMPANY, INC.

December 14, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration

I am writing to you at the request of Mr. Mark Schwimmer of your office.

We are fully aware of the requirements set forth in DOT 109 and DOT 119, particularly with respect to sidewall markings and treadwear indicators. However, from time to time we are offered tire samples of new European production which the manufacturers claim are in compliance with the strength and endurance requirements of DOT 109 or DOT 119, but which may not fully comply with the sidewall markings and/or treadwear indicator requirements.

Is there any way we can legally import these samples for road testing purposes without requiring the manufacturers to modify their molds, a time consuming and expensive process for them, particularly since their export business to the USA may never materialize to the extent that they'll be able to amortize their engraving costs?

Specifically, we desire to road test these tires in sample lots of less than one hundred tires per design model, after having first submitted samples of each design model to a recognized testing laboratory here to ensure (for our own protection) that the tires comply fully with the strength and endurance requirements of the applica DOT standard.

Your cooperation and advice on this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Martin P. Ronsen

ID: 77-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oaklahoma Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 16, 1976, letter concerning tires marked "Reno Farm Tire--Farm Use Only" that are appearing on some passenger cars in Oklahoma. I understand that the DOT symbol is also marked on the sidewalls of these tires, as a certification of conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars.

Paragraph S6 of the standard precludes the manufacture of farm tires in passenger car tire sizes unless those tires conform to and are certified as conforming to all aspects of the standard. There is not, however, any provision in Standard No. 109 that prohibits the additional marking that you have described on a tire that is manufactured and sold for passenger car use. No safety issue appears to be presented by this situation.

You have also asked who is responsible for compliance with the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574, copy enclosed). That regulation creates various obligations for tire manufacturers, motor vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle dealers, and others. Where a tire manufacturer sells tires to a trailer manufacturer, the presence of the "Farm Use Only" marking has no effect on those obligations.

SINCERELY,

Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

December 16, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel NHTSA

In the State of Oklahoma, there is now appearing on some passenger cars tires which were manufactured by UniRoyal, Inc. These tires are labeled "Reno Farm Tire -- Farm Use Only". Apparently, these tires meet FMVSS 109, as they do bear DOT on the side wall. While we are fully cognizant that NHTSA has allowed the labeling "Reno Farm Tire", we would like to know why a tire manufacturer has the prerogative of labeling a tire with any type labeling such as Farm Use Only, Farm Implement, etc., even though the tire presumably meets FMVSS 109.

Additionally, assuming the tire manufacturer sold this type of tire marked "Farm Use Only" to a manufacturer of trailers, who becomes responsible for complying with Part 570 of FMVSS Tire Records and Identification?

Lt. C. R. Townsend, Director Motor Vehicle Inspection Division

ID: 77-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your oral request of February 17, 1977, for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, as they apply to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. In particular, you ask how much force must be used when testing school bus seat belt anchorages for compliance with the standards.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, initially proposed that seat belt anchorages be installed in all school buses. At that time, we also proposed that each seat belt assembly be tested under a force of 1,500 pounds. A seat containing three seating positions would have had the three seat belt assemblies tested simultaneously with a possible resulting load upon the seat of 4,500 pounds. The requirement of seat belt anchorages in larger buses was dropped from the proposal based upon comments from school bus operators and as a result of our compartmentalization approach to passenger seating safety in school buses.

The present Standard No. 222 requires seat belts and anchorages in small buses and mandates testing of the anchorages as outlined in Standard No. 210. Standard No. 210 requires in S4.2.1 that each seat belt assembly sustain a force application of 5,000 pounds. Where two adjacent seating positions have a common seat belt anchorage mounted on a seat frame, the two seat belt assemblies must simultaneously sustain a 5,000 pound force for a maximum load on the seat of 10,000 pounds.

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, requires the simultaneous testing of all seat-mounted seat belt assemblies, whether or not they have common anchorages. However, Standard No. 207 is not applicable to school bus seats constructed in accordance with Standard No. 222, and it is not necessary to test simultaneously all seat belt assemblies attached to anchorages mounted on a school bus seat frame.

ID: 77-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/77

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

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 10, 1976, petition to amend Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. In your petition you request that the NHTSA withdraw the requirements for seat belts in buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Secondly, you suggest that the NHTSA reconsider the validity of establishing 10,000 pounds GVWR as the dividing line between buses that must be equipped with seat belts and those which need not be so equipped. The NHTSA denies your requested rulemaking.

The NHTSA mandated the installation of seat belts in school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, because these vehicles are subject to different crash pulses than larger school buses under the same accident circumstances. To ensure adequate protection for children transported in these vehicles, the NHTSA applied to small school buses some of the seating requirements mandated for larger buses plus the installation of seat belts. Since we are aware of no data indicating that small buses do not need the additional protection provided by seat belts, the NHTSA considers the necessary safety requirement.

The second recommendation in your petition suggests that the NHTSA classification of vehicles into two groups, one with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less and another with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds, is arbitrary. You indicate that a vehicle weighing slightly more than 10,000 pounds will not react in a crash situation significantly different than a vehicle slightly under 10,000 pounds. Accordingly, you suggest that there is no valid reason to have different requirements for buses within a relatively narrow weight range.

The NHTSA has historically classified vehicles into the two weight groupings you mention. This has been done in part because there are significant differences between large and small vehicles with respect to their reactions in crashes. The agency realizes that any line differentiating the two classes may seem arbitrary to manufacturers of vehicles that fall barely on either side of the line. Arguably, these vehicles, similar in many respects, would exhibit only minor differences in crash pulse in any given accident situation. Nonetheless, the classification is valid for the majority of vehicles in each class. Since we are aware of no data that would indicate that a line could better be drawn elsewhere, the NHTSA has decided to retain the present classification.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

December 10, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection

The Wayne Corporation petitions NHTSA to either: Delete from FMVSS 222, Section S5(b), the requirements for and reference to 571.208, 571.209, and 571.210; or delete from FMVSS 222, all of Section S5(b) and revise Section S5(a) to include school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less.

The reason for this petition is based on Wayne's contention that FMVSS 222 unfairly discriminates against a particular class of school bus vehicles and that it is unreasonable as it applies to school bus vehicles with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less; and if allowed to stand, will force the manufacturers to cease production and withdraw this class of vehicle from the market.

This petition requests that the requirement that seat belts be installed and the requirement for seat belts and seat belt anchorages as applied to school bus vehicles with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less be eliminated from FMVSS 222.

The subject of seat belts in school buses has been and continues to be a controversial one. Seat belt proponents, who are safety advocates, promise a reduction in injury severity and reduced fatalities in school bus accidents if seat belts are used. Seat belt opponents, who are primarily school bus operators, predict dire consequences if seat belts are mandated for school buses. Wayne believes that NHTSA has been exposed to the pros and cons of this discussion, therefore, it is unnecessary for purposes of this petition to delineate in detail the positions of both points of view. To say that school bus operators object to seat belts in school buses is a gross understatement of their position in the matter. As discussed in the preamble of Docket No. 73-3, Notice 05, the school bus operators even objected to the proposal that seat belt anchorages be installed in school buses for fear that this would encourage the installation of seat belts. Wayne maintains that all other things being equal, the school bus operator, given the choice between the bus equipped with seat belts and a bus without seat belts, will always purchase the bus that does not have seat belts.

Currently school buses in the 16 to 24 passenger capacity range with gross vehicle weight ratings under 10,000 pounds and just over 10,000 pounds (10,500 to 11,000 pounds) are being marketed. Typical of this situation is the Wayne Busette and the Carpenter Cadet. The Wayne Busette is manufactured by the Wayne Division of Richmond, Indiana, has a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds, and will accommodate up to 20 seated passengers (see the enclosed Busette specification sheet). The Carpenter Cadet CV is manufactured by the Carpenter Body Works, Inc. of Mitchell, Indiana, has a GVWR of 10,500 pounds, and will accommodate up to 23 seated passengers (see enclosed copy of Cadet literature).

Both of these buses currently list for approximately $ 9,500. FMVSS 222, when it becomes effective, will require that both buses have seats which meet the same performance requirements, however, in addition, the Busette must have seat belts which comply with FMVSS 208, 209, and 210, installed at each passenger seating position. Wayne estimates that the increase in cost due to the seat belts alone will be in the $ 200 to $ 500 range.

FMVSS 222 discriminates against the small school bus with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds because seat belts are unacceptable to bus operators and alternate types of buses having the same functional characteristics are available without seat belts and the accompanying increased cost.

Wayne considers FMVSS 222 as it applies to school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less to be unreasonable because the increase in weight attributable to the standard's requirement for seat belts will result in a total vehicle weight in excess of the GVWR of chassis available to body manufacturers and, therefore, will necessitate the removal of this type of vehicle from the market. The excess weight is attributable to the standard's requirement for seat belts in the Busette class of school bus as is shown in the following. Chassis Manufacturer's GVWR for Busette chassis 8,900 lbs. Total Busette weight including passengers pre-FMVSS 222 8,728 lbs. Increased weight due to the FMVSS 222 seat performance requirements without seat belts 104 lbs.

8,832 lbs. Increased weight due to FMVSS 222 require- ments for seat belts and their supporting systems 256 lbs. Total Busette Weight Post-FMVSS 222 9,088 lbs. Chassis GVWR 8,900 lbs. Vehicle Gross Weight Excess 188 lbs.

Since the Busette's introduction in 1974, the Wayne Division has produced and sold approximately 2,500 Busette vehicles, 2,400 of which have been school buses. Wayne has every reason to believe that the Busette school bus is a viable product in the market place as each year since its introduction, unit sales have increased at the rate of 10% to 15%. With the installation of seat belts as mandated by FMVSS 222, the gross vehicle weight will exceed the available chassis manufacturer's GVWR, therefore, Wayne will be forced to withdrawn the Busette school bus from the market. By taking the Busette off the market, the bus operator's choice of vehicles will be reduced forcing him to purchase vehicles which are more costly to operate. In addition, such action will reduce employment opportunities in Richmond, Indiana, and result in a financial hardship to the Wayne Division.

NHTSA's reason for requiring seat belts for small school buses is based on their contention that a more severe crash pulse is experienced by the smaller vehicles as compared with the larger vehicles under similar accident conditions. This may be a reasonable position for vehicles with a difference in GVWR of the magnitude of 10,000 to 15,000 pounds, however, as pointed out above, school buses just over the standard's 10,000 pound classification demarcation are available and this position cannot be justified for buses with a difference of 1,000 to 2,000 pounds GVWR.

In addition, NHTSA's position on seat belts seems to be inconsistent as illustrated in their reply to the Physicians for Automotive Safety request for seat belts in school buses. In Docket 73-3, Notice 05, NHTSA reiterates their position on seat belts, namely, "that a requirement for seat belts without the assurance of proper supervision of their use would not be an effective means of providing occupant protection." If seat belts will not provide an effective means of occupant protection in the big buses because of the absence of proper supervision, it logically follows that seat belts will also not provide an effective means of occupant protection in the small bus for the same reasons. Therefore, the requirement for seat belts should be altogether eliminated from the standard.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

CARPENTER Cadet "CV" '76

(Enclosure Omitted)