ID: nht90-1.94

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 30, 1990

FROM: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President,Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Michael F. Trentacoste -- Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3- 23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598)

TEXT:

Thomas Built Buses, Inc. has recently received a copy of your letter of August 8, 1989, to Ms. Karen Finkel, Executive Director of the National School Transportation Association, Springfield, Virginia. Thomas is vitally concerned with the opinion you ha ve expressed in your letter regarding the requirements for school buses that, by definition are engaged in "interstate commerce", to comply with the non-school bus requirements for emergency exits as specified in FMVSS No. 217, (571.217), as released on September 1, 1973.

Our concern is rooted in the fact that because of the special requirements of school bus seating, it is patently impossible, in many critical applications, to comply with these requirements.

As you are aware, the NHTSA has revised FMVSS 217 subsequent to the September 1973 issue date. We refer primarily to the revisions made effective October 26, 1976 and February 10, 1982. You are probably not aware of two letters of interpretation receiv ed by Thomas Built Buses, Inc. from the Office of Chief Counsel of NHTSA in 1977 and 1984, as well as recent interpretations received from the legal staff of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge et.al., all of which Thomas believes are in disagreement with the opi nion expressed in your letter of August 8, 1989 to Ms. Finkel. We present for your consideration the following items:

1. Prior to the revisions to FMVSS 217 (571.217) by the NHTSA in 1976 and 1982, the language of FMCSR 393.61(b) (2) requiring that "a bus, including a school bus....must conform with NHTSA's 571.217"....left no alternative but that the schoo l bus "engaged in interstate commerce" would have to meet the non-school bus requirements since, because of the exclusion of school buses by NHTSA from these requirements, only non-school bus requirements were spelled out. The 1976 and 1982 Revisions to FMVSS 217 by NHTSA removed the exclusion for school buses spelled out in the September, 1973 version of FMVSS 217 and added specific emergency exit requirements for school buses of all classes.

Currently, with no revisions to the language of section 393.61(b) (2), the reference of 393.61(b) (2) to 571.217 now points the school bus user to the school bus requirements, and not to the non-school bus requirements.

2. In response to questions from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. to the NHTSA re application of FMVSS 217 to school buses, the NHTSA Chief Counsel (Mr. J. J. Levine, Jr., NOA-30, September 29, 1977) verified that paragraph S5.2 containing the requirements for buses other than school buses does indeed apply only to non-school buses. A copy of this letter is attached.

3. In response to questions from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. to the NHTSA, again re applications of FMVSS 217 to school buses, the NHTSA Chief Counsel (Mr. Frank Berndt, letter to Mr. Ron Marion dated July 5, 1984) verified that even in the cas e of school buses that are also used for "charter buses or general transit vehicles", these buses do not need to meet the requirements of FMVSS 217 for non-school buses. A copy of this letter is attached.

4. In a separate review of the facts of this matter by the legal firm of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, N.C., Thomas Built Buses, Inc. has been advised that in their opinion, school buses are not required, in any instance of usage or travel, to comply with the non-school bus requirements of FMVSS 217. A copy of this letter is attached.

Mr. Trentacoste, in light of the information submitted herein, Thomas Built Buses, Inc. respectfully requests that your office review and revise your letter of August 8, 1989 to Ms. Finkel to bring it into agreement with these interpretations.

We appreciate your taking the time to review this material, and look forward to hearing from your office on this matter.

ID: nht90-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 2, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: DENNIS D. FURR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-28-89 TO DIANE STEED, NHTSA, FROM DENNIS D. FURR ATTACHED.

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and to your telephone conversations with this agency concerning school bus safety. You intended your letter to function as a "petition" to amend S4.1 of Federal motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.2229), and Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR S1204.4).

Ms. Fujita of my staff has discussed with you our difficulty in understanding your petition. With respect to Standard 222, your letter did not clearly set forth the facts which you believe establish that an order is necessary (as specified for petitions under 49 CFR S552.4(c)); nor did you set forth the substance of the order which you think NHTSA should issue (S552.4(d)). (Ms. Fujita has since sent you a copy of these requirements.) This information helps NHTSA adequately understand and evaluate pet itions. In the absence of that information, we have attempted to surmise the essence of your request, based on your past correspondence with NHTSA. Please advise us whether our surmise is correct. To avoid the possibility of our acting on the basis of incorrect assumptions, we will take no further action on this matter until we hear from you.

Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 222 states:

The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.

In your past correspondence, you've expressed concerns about overloaded school buses and the manner in which manufacturers designate the passenger capacity of a school bus. you've suggested that S4.1 of Standard 222 contributes to the overloading of scho ol buses, in that it permits manufacturers to designate a 39-inch bench seat as having three, and not two, seating positions. In our responses, we explained that a 39-inch bench seat is calculated as having three seating positions under S4.1 to ensure t hat the seat will be constructed to provide adequate crash protection when occupied by the maximum number of passengers. it is not Standard 222's intention to require or suggest that the seat should be occupied by the maximum number of passengers, althou gh a 39-inch bench seat is capable of carrying three passengers with a hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female. We also said that the number of seating positions derived from S4.1 is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all sizes of occupants. A bus may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students, but only 43

high school students. (Examples of letters regarding your concerns are NHTSA's letters to Senator Donald Riegle (July 5, 1985), and Congressman Howard Wolpe (February 23, 1989).) We would like to emphasize that Standard 222 does not address the capacity of a school bus. The decision regarding how many passengers should be carried by a school bus is made by the States.

NHTSA recommends in Highway Safety Program Guideline 17 that States should plan school bus routes such that each occupant is provided a seat and to eliminate standees. However, the guideline is non-binding on the States, and NHTSA does not have the autho rity to regulate how school buses are loaded.

In your current letter, you imply that manufacturers are improperly calculating the number of seating positions on a bench seat. Information available to NHTSA indicates that manufacturers are calculating the positions in accordance with S4.1.

Since you seem dissatisfied with S4.1, you appear to believe that S4.1 should be changed. We believe you wish to suggest that S4.1's calculation of seating positions should be based on the hip width of a high school student. Under your suggestion, a 39- inch bench seat would be considered to have two seating positions, and not three (as presently calculated). You apparently believe that calculating three positions on a 39-inch seat is one position too many, in that "one third of the school buses' rated capacity (is placed) outside of the head, and leg impact zones' of compartmentalization. We would like to point out that your suggested change would have the effect of reducing the applied forces and energy for testing the seat, thereby creating a poten tially less safe environment for passengers. You also seem to believe that designating three positions encourages school bus operators to overload the seat. We understand you to suggest that S4.1 be amended such that the number of positions on a bench seat is calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded down to the nearest whole number.

As I stated earlier in this letter, the preceding discussion constitutes our understanding of your "petition" on Standard 222. Before we consider your petition further, you must inform us if we are correct in our understanding.

With respect to Guideline 17, there is no available formal procedure under which interested persons may petition for a change to NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guidelines. However, the agency is preparing to issue a Federal Register notice requesting pu blic comments on proposed revisions to the guideline. We will forward a copy of your letter to the appropriate docket once the notice is published.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht90-1.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 2, 1990

FROM: Joan E. Fogleman -- Lund & Pullara Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Dept., NHTSA

TITLE: Temporary importation into the U.S. of non-complying vehicle for repairs.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated April 26, 1990 To Joan E. Fogelman and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; Part 591)

TEXT:

Thank you for your time today concerning our phone conversation pertaining to the 1985 non-complying Mercedes 280S vehicle which has arrived at the Port of Palm Beach from Freeport, Bahamas.

As you explained to me today, this vehiele, being imported solely for repair and return to the Bahamas, does not require the posting of a DOT bond for 150 percent of the value.

We will make formal entry with U. S. Customs, and post a Customs bond to cover the liability.

U.S. Customs wants a reassurance that they will not be held accountable if for some unforseen happening, this vehicle is not properly exported.

Your further advice in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

&s vehiele, being imported sole

ID: nht90-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/90

FROM: MANUEL R. GARCIA

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/26/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO MANUEL R. GARCIA; A35; PART 591; PART 592; PART 593; PART 594

TEXT: I am station overseas and work for the US Government in Civil Service. I recently bought a 1974 BMW model 1602 car made overseas.

Please send me information on EPA and Safety requirements the car must conform to before being shipped to the USA. Can I wait until the car gets to the states to make the necessary repairs or conversion to meet the EPA and Safety requirements?

I would also like the publication that covers the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register.

Please send the information to the following address:

Manuel R. Garcia PSC Box 1865 APO NY 09406

ID: nht90-1.98

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 3, 1990

FROM: Harold Williams

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to H. Williams (A36; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); Std. 111)

TEXT:

My company is making a addon passenger mirror wiper for big truck mirrors. It is air operated and hooks into the trucks air system, what we must know is the requirements for materials to be used on a after market product like this, it will hook into the seat or wiper air supply, we are using industrial grade fittings, hoses and valves at this time, and we want to be within the D.O.T. requirements in marketing a after market product like this, would you please send me all the information that you have re garding the rules and regulations in this area, as soon as possible. Thank you very much

ID: nht90-1.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1990

FROM: Richard E. Portors -- Vice President and General Manager, Royale Limousine Manufacturers

TO: Zachary R. Fraser -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to R.E. Portors (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Please give me an advisory on my understanding of requirement 571.108 - S4.1.1.41 high mounted stop lamps section (a) projected area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches.

The 90 Cadillac stop lamps measure 6 sq. inches of area. When installing a boomerang TV antenna the shaft area displaces 1.125 sq. inch of area, this would leave an exposed area of 4 7/8" of light and would exceed the minimum requirements of section (a) . Also, section (b) would not be affected by the boomerang. Without window glazing, section (c) would not be affected either. I feel the boomerang antenna positioned properly would not affect the requirements of 571.108.

Please advise me on your findings as soon as possible.

Attached is a copy of the Federal Register, section 571.108, 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-85- Edition), page 218 (text omitted)

ID: nht90-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

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

TO: GEORGE B. MADAY -- PRES., NETWORK USA INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-19-89 TO ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA, FROM GEORGE B. MADAY ATTACHED. TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to the automatic light switching device whose potential for the U.S. market you are assessing. The device automatically activates the headlamps at a pre-detetmined (but adjustable) level of darkness. There is a manual override for the operator. I regret the delay in responding.

You have asked two questions:

1. What legislation is in force or pending regarding the mandatory utilization of such daytime running lights for vehicles?"

None. The agency once proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytime running lamps as an option, but it terminated rulemaking on this subject without taking action.

2. What regulations, standards, forms, etc. have to be submitted to you or the appropriate agency to ensure that the product meets any U.S. specifications or standards prior to importation.

None. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to this item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if you intend it to be installed as an item of original equipment, it must not create a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, or result in an impairment of the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. For example, the standard requires the taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. Therefore, when your device activates the headlamps, the taillamps must also be activated. Though expressed in somewhat different terms, the acceptability of your device in the aftermarket is governed by a similar consideration: it may not be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business if the installation would render inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. The device would remain subject to the laws of any State in which it is sold or operated. We are unable to advise you as to its acceptability under state laws, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht90-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

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

TO: M. IWASE -- GENERAL MGR., TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT., KOITO MFG. CO., LTD. TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED OCTOBER 18, 1989 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE ATTACHED; (OCC-406). ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES AND LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1988 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE TEXT: This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD). I regret the delay in responding.

You have recently made some modifications in the design of a detachable spirit level, and you have asked whether the May 9, 1989, amendments to Standard No. 108 permit this design. Previously we had furnished you an interpretation based upon the VHAD pr oposal.

The rule of May 9 does not permit a separate VHAD such as a spirit level. You will note that S7.7.5.2(c)(3)(vii) (proposed S7.7.5.2(b)(7)) did not adopt the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)". Thi s proposed phrase was the basis of the statement in our letter of September 12, 1988, that a VHAD could be separate from the headlamp assembly.

Although S7.7.5.2(c)(1) of the final rule speaks of Ban integral or separate VHAD mechanism", as you noted, we have since clarified that a VHAD that is "separate" does not mean one that is detachable, but simply one that need not be integral with the hea dlamp housing itself. Thus a spirit level VHAD is permissible, but it must be permanently installed on the vehicle, though not necessarily on the headlamp housing. I enclose a copy of the amendments to Standard No. 108 published on February 2, 1990, ad opting definitions of "VHAD", "Direct Reading Indicator" and "Indirect Reading indicator".

ID: nht90-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR - WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson, with respect to litigation recently brought by the United States against several firms that install plastic film, or "tint," on automobile windows.

You have asked about the statutory authority under which these suits were brought. Pursuant to section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act"), 15 U.S.C. @ 1392, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2), provides that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . ."

Thus, by installing tint firm on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles "inoperative," in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create

a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards.

You also asked for our comments on whether Florida's statutes are preempted by these suits. We assume that you are referring to the provision of Florida law that prohibits the operation of any vehicle in the State of Florida that has glazing with less than 35 percent light transmittance. This statute, and similar statutes adopted by other states, do not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by tint installation firms -- that is illegal under the Safety Act. Thus, there is no conflict with Federal law, and Florida may continue to enforce its operating rules.

I hope that this responds to your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.

ID: nht90-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

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

TO: R.W. SCHREYER -- SENIOR SALES ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTURING CORP. TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-5-90 TO HARRY THOMPSON FROM R. W. SCHREYER ATTACHED; (OCC 4509). ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 12-11-89 TO FRANK BERNDT FROM JOE DABROWSKI, LETTER DATED 3-22-89 TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, AND LETTER DATED 3-25-77 TO ROBERT B. KURRE, WAYNE CORPORATION, FROM FRANK BERNDT. TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Harry Thompson of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt AssemblY Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). You posed two questions, which I will answer in the order presented.

First, you noted that the State of Nevada will be procuring some prison buses, equipped with lap-only safety belts at the passenger seating positions. You correctly noted that no safety standard requires safety belts to be installed for passenger seatin g positions on buses, but asked if this agency could "provide direction on what course of action (TMC) should take." You asked particularly whether you should design the anchorages for the lap-only safety belts to conform with the requirements of Standa rd No. 210.

NHTSA answered this question in a March 22, 1989 letter to Mr. Keith McDowell, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. As we said in that letter, NHTSA must decline to issue any "guidelines" beyond or in addition to the requirements set forth in the safety standards. Therefore, since Standard No. 210 expressly exempts passenger seats in buses from the standard's anchorage requirements, Federal law leaves the question of how any such anchorages should be designed entirely up to the judgment of the bus manufacturer. Please note, however, that the State of Nevada is free to specify certain design and performance criteria with which these anchorages must comply in its contract for these buses.

Second, you asked for a clarification of the testing conducted to determine compliance with Standard No. 210. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test with which anchorages must comply. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 reads as fo llows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to thos e anchorages." You asked whether all seats in the coach must be tested simultaneously or whether a single seat would be tested, and then the next seat tested, and so forth.

Please note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are "floor-mounted" anchorages for "adjacent designated

seating positions." Assuming that there is an aisle or some other separation between the seat assemblies in your buses, the only "adjacent" designated seating positions would be those common to one occupant seat. Therefore, no more than one occupant sea t's anchorages would be tested simultaneously under Standard No. 210. Even those anchorages common to one occupant seat would be tested simultaneously only if the anchorages were floor-mounted.

Enclosure